Stimson v. Connecticut River Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, with a count in tort, for the value of a valise and samples of merchandise contained in it, all of the property of the plaintiffs, who were wholesale dealers in fancy goods at Boston.
Read the full summary
Contract, with a count in tort, for the value of a valise and samples of merchandise contained in it, all of the property of the plaintiffs, who were wholesale dealers in fancy goods at Boston. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., there was evidence that the plaintiffs intrusted the valise and its contents to Samuel F. Edwards, their travelling agent to sell goods by sample, who, on September 12, 1866, while engaged in that business, bought at Northampton a ticket for Boston from the defendant corporation, whose road connected at Springfield with the Western Railroad,…
1Opinion of the CourtHoar, J.
The defendants had no contract with the plaintiffs. Their contract was with Edwards, the plaintiffs’ agent; and it was a strictly personal contract, for his safe transportation over the railroads, to which the carriage of suitable personal baggage was merely incidental. Edwards had no right to transport merchandise under cover of his personal baggage; much less could he take merchandise in that manner which belonged to other persons, and thereby give them the rights of a contracting party against the defendants. Jordan v. Fall River Railroad Co. 5 Cush. 69. Collins v. Boston & Maine Railroad,…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Humphreys v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Curtis v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Alling v. Boston & Albany RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Blumantle v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Runyan v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.