Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Synthetic Rubber Corporation and American Rubber & Chemical Company v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided February 18, 1970No. 19153_1Published

1DissentO’Sullivan, Circuit Judge

I regret that I must respectfully dissent. In my view, the action here involved is not controlled by the Carmack Amendment. The wrong committed here did not arise from misdelivery of the car of butadiene. Such cargo was the subject matter of the bill of lading which, in turn, was the only contract involved. That ear, although first erroneously delivered to Olin Mathieson, came on to the plant of plaintiff undamaged, and no damage was suffered because of its delayed arrival. The only property of plaintiff covered by the contract made by the bill of lading was the butadiene. The plaintiff here…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
  3. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad v. Peninsula Produce ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. Norton v. ShotmeyerDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1947

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