Schneider v. Evans
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for St. Croix County. Replevin. The- facts were stipulated as follows : 1. That the plaintiff is owner of the property described in the complaint, and the same is of the value there alleged. 2. That said property was delivered to the Pittsburg, Port Wayne and Chicago Railway Company, at Pitts-burg, Penn., by the plaintiff’s duly authorized agent, to be transported to the plaintiff at Hudson, Wis., and that at the time of said delivery the said…
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for St. Croix County. Replevin. The- facts were stipulated as follows : 1. That the plaintiff is owner of the property described in the complaint, and the same is of the value there alleged. 2. That said property was delivered to the Pittsburg, Port Wayne and Chicago Railway Company, at Pitts-burg, Penn., by the plaintiff’s duly authorized agent, to be transported to the plaintiff at Hudson, Wis., and that at the time of said delivery the said railway company, by its duly authorized agent, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a certain agreement.in writing…
1Opinion of the CourtPaine, J.
There can be no doubt that the contract' between the plaintiff and the Pittsburg, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway Company was not what is called a *249through contract. That company did not undertake to carry the goods to Hudson; on the contrary, it expressly restricted its liability as a carrier to its own route. It did, however, guaranty, on its behalf, and in behalf of the other companies and carriers constituting the entire route,, that the through freight should not exceed a certain sum. But it is a stipulated fact in the case, that each of the companies acted independently, and that they did…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Commercial Bank v. KortrightCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1839
- McMillan v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. R.Michigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Detroit & Milwaukee Railroad v. Farmers' & Millers' Bank of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
- In re Van AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Brown v. ThissellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Conkey v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Detroit & Bay City Railway Co. v. McKenzieMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Goodin v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Crossan v. New York & New England RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. MurrahSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.