Legal Opinion · Dissent

Knapp v. Minneapolis, St. Paul, & Sault Ste, Marie Railway Co.

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 1916Published

Appeal from tbe judgment of tbe District Court of Burke County, Buttz, Special Judge. Defendant appeals. “Tbe duties and obligations of tbe common carrier witb respect to tbe goods commence witb tbeir delivery to bim; this, delivery must be complete, so as to put upon bim tbe exclusive duty of seeing to tbeir safety.

Read the full summary

Appeal from tbe judgment of tbe District Court of Burke County, Buttz, Special Judge. Defendant appeals. “Tbe duties and obligations of tbe common carrier witb respect to tbe goods commence witb tbeir delivery to bim; this, delivery must be complete, so as to put upon bim tbe exclusive duty of seeing to tbeir safety. Tbe law will not divide tbe duty or tbe obligation between tbe carrier and tbe owner of tbe goods and until it has become imposed upon tbe carrier by a delivery and acceptance, be cannot be held responsible for loss. Hutchinson, Carr. 3d ed. § 105; Missouri P. R. Co. v. McFadden,…

1DissentBruce, J.

I am unable to concur with the above opinion. Counsel for appellant contends that “plaintiff has, by his own offer in evidence, established the contract under which the plaintiff and defendant dealt in respect to the transportation of the grain, and has thereby rendered incompetent and immaterial the negotiations by *493him with the soliciting freight .agent, Cole, because these negotiations were all prior to the making of these bills of lading.” lie also contends that the bills of lading exempt the defendant railway company from .liability for the grain until actually loaded into its cars.

Counsel…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. PrattSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
  2. Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. Commercial Guano Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  3. Swift v. . Pacific Mail Steamship Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
  4. Noyes v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
  5. Railroad Co. v. Androscoggin MillsSupreme Court of the United States · 1874

2 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