Legal Opinion · Dissent

George v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1949No. L. A. 20801Published

C. Paul DuBois and Henry P. Walker for Respondents.

1DissentCarter, J.

I dissent.

I agree with that part of the majority opinion dealing with negligence and burden of proof, but I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached with respect to the damages to be recovered by plaintiffs or the reasons assigned therefor. I am in accord with a statement made in 37 Columbia Law Review 248, 262, to the effect that the provision of the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act against exculpation of the warehouseman has been judicially emasculated by way of the valuation device. The conclusion reached in this case is an excellent illustration of that statement, and is, moreover,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Hart v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Reid v. FargoSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  4. Donlon Bros. v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Healy v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API