Legal Opinion

Jonesboro, Lake City & Eastern Railroad v. Maddy

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 12, 1923PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). It is first insisted by counsel for the defendant that the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the railway company because the notice required by paragraph 8 of the live stock contract of shipment was not given by the plaintiff.

The live stock contract in question involves an interstate shipment of hogs. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that a stipulation in a contract which is governed by the Carmack Amendment for the interstate transportation of live stock releases the carrier from all loss or damage unless a written claim…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Railroad Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  3. Hart v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  4. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. StarbirdSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  5. Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ritchie v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Farmers Grain Co. v. Toledo, P. & W. R. R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1946
  3. Foley v. American Railway Express Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Warner, Lorance Gammon v. St. L.-s.F. Ry. Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1925
  5. Kuhlman Plastics Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1966

3 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