Stahl v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a carload of wood. The wood was transported by the defendants from Randolph to Berlin for the plaintiff, who demanded it after having paid the transportation charges. The defendants’ freight agent at Berlin absolutely and unconditionally refused to deliver it, claiming to hold it for demurrage charges upon other cars of wood previously transported for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a carload of wood. The wood was transported by the defendants from Randolph to Berlin for the plaintiff, who demanded it after having paid the transportation charges. The defendants’ freight agent at Berlin absolutely and unconditionally refused to deliver it, claiming to hold it for demurrage charges upon other cars of wood previously transported for the plaintiff. The refusal was occasioned by the agent’s understanding of the defendants’ rights, and not by reason of instructions from the defendants. The agent immediately wrote to his superior officer for instructions in regard…
1Opinion of the CourtChase, J.
The plaintiff relies upon the absolute and unconditional character of the agent’s refusal, to distinguish this case from Hett v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 139, in which the agent’s refusal was coupled with a declaration of want of authority to deliver the property without payment of the extra charge demanded, and an offer to deliver it upon such payment, subject to the condition that the money should be refunded if his principal so decided, or upon a promise of payment if the principal insisted upon it.
In. the earliest case on the subject in this state, the refusal to comply with the demand seems to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hett v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
3Cited by4 opinions
- LFC Leasing & Financial Corp. v. Ashuelot National BankSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
- Dittmaier v. Supreme Conclave of the Improved Order HeptasophsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1919
- Peirce v. FinertySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1911
- Purcell v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Illinois Circuit Court · 1893