Glenn v. Southern Express Co.
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM SHELBY. Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Shelby County. L. H. Estes, J. Suit by Glenn & Sons to recover of the Southern Express Company a sum of money alleged to have been extracted from an express package sent by T. H. Bell, of Rutherford, Tenn., to plaintiffs, at Cincinnati, Ohio.
Read the full summary
PROM SHELBY. Appeal in error from Circuit Court of Shelby County. L. H. Estes, J. Suit by Glenn & Sons to recover of the Southern Express Company a sum of money alleged to have been extracted from an express package sent by T. H. Bell, of Rutherford, Tenn., to plaintiffs, at Cincinnati, Ohio. The package, when delivered to defendant, was supposed to contain $856.70, but, when received by plaintiffs, it contained only $656.70. The receipt given "by defendant for this package contained this stipulation: that the company should not he liable for any loss of its contents unless the claim therefor…
1Opinion of the CourtTurney, C. J.
In the receipt of the company for the money package is the clause, “ In no event is this company to he liable for a greater sum than the above mentioned; nor shall it be liable for any such loss unless the claim therefor shall be made in writing at this office within thirty days from this date,” etc. The shipment was to have been made from Rutherford,. Tennessee, to the plaintiffs in Cincinnati, and could have been *596made and heard from in a very short time, therefore the stipulation is a reasonable one, and, with nothing explaining a non-compliance with its requirements, should be enforced.…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Telegraph Co. v. MellonTennessee Supreme Court · 1896
- Southern Railway Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Lowry v. Southern Railway Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1906
- Hatch v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
- Armstrong v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.