Page v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Davison county. Hon. D. Haney, Judge. Action to recover damages. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The acceptance of freight by a common carrier for a place beyond his usual route, and naming the shipper a through rate, does not therefor amount to a through contract. Stewart v. Railroad, 3 Fed. 768; Converse v. Trans. Co., 6 Am. L. Reg. 214; McCarthy v. Railroad, 9 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Davison county. Hon. D. Haney, Judge. Action to recover damages. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion. The acceptance of freight by a common carrier for a place beyond his usual route, and naming the shipper a through rate, does not therefor amount to a through contract. Stewart v. Railroad, 3 Fed. 768; Converse v. Trans. Co., 6 Am. L. Reg. 214; McCarthy v. Railroad, 9 Mo. App. 159; Railroad v. Kerr, 8 So. 330. An instruction which is misleading because it does not go far enough, or by reason of an omission, and which…
1Opinion of the CourtKellam, J.
This is an action to recover for damages to a car load of popcorn shipped by respondent from Mitchell, S. D., over appellant’s road. The corn was consigned to a party in Boston, and it is practically undisputed that it was damaged in transit, but after it left appellant’s line of road. It is evident that the rights of the respondent and the liabilities of appellant must depend upon the contract under which the corn was shipped. If appellant made a through contract, by which it undertook to transport the corn through from Mitchell to Boston, then it may be liable; but unless it did by contract…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. PrattSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Quimby v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Illinois Central Railroad v. CopelandIllinois Supreme Court · 1860
- Condict v. Grand Trunk Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Burroughs v. Norwich & Worcester RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McLagan v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1902
- Coates v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1896
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BryantIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
- Carter v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1910
- Sutton v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1900