Hot Springs Railroad v. Trippe & Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Garland Circuit Court. Hon. J. B. Wood, Circuit Judge. The bill of lading, of itself, was not competent, as against defendant, to establish a partnership, or joint relation.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Garland Circuit Court. Hon. J. B. Wood, Circuit Judge. The bill of lading, of itself, was not competent, as against defendant, to establish a partnership, or joint relation. It is only after the relation is established that the acts of one party are received to affect the other. 29 Ark., 626. Hutchinson on Carriers, after an extended review of the authorities, sums up the rules on this subject at section 169, as follows: “ From these cases it may be deduced: First, that where carriers over different routes have associated themselves under a contract, on a division of the profits…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The railroad company was sued as a common carrier for damage done to a lot of dry goods in transit from New York to Hot Springs. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company had signed a “through” bill of lading between the two points, guaranteeing a certain rate of freight pier hundred weight for the entire distance. ¡There was no stipulation for exemption from liability for losses beyond its own route, but the Baltimore and Ohio road expressly reserved the right to forward the goods by any rail-i’oad line between the points of shipment and destination. The goods were sent to St. Louis, and were…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Laughlin v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Smith v. New York Central Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Darling v. Boston & Worcester RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1865
3Cited by4 opinions
- Swift v. . Pacific Mail Steamship Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. RoachSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
- St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. CarlileSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Crockett v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910