Michigan Central Railroad v. Carrow
Illinois Supreme Court
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Lambert Tree, Judge, presiding. This was an action on the case, hy the appellee against the appellant, as a common carrier, to recover the value of baggage and merchandise consumed by fire while in the defendant’s baggage car. The defendant filed the general issue, and a trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for §30,789.78.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Scott
Two propositions are asserted, upon which it is attempted to maintain the present judgment: First, the company is liable as a common carrier of the goods destroyed; and, second, if not liable as a common carrier, it is liable for negligence as bailee.
Iii order to maintain the first proposition, it is assumed such facts have been proven as would warrant the conclusion the company, when it received appellee’s baggage, knew it contained merchandise. We adopt as an accurate expression of the law what counsel concede: that a traveler who presents to a carrier of passengers a trunk or valise, such…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dunlap v. International Steamboat Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Chicago & Aurora Railroad v. ThompsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1858
- Michigan Central Railroad v. GougarIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Cincinnati & Chicago Air Line Railroad v. MarcusIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Kuter v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois · 1853
3Cited by21 opinions
- Massaletti v. FitzroyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Alabama Great Soiitliern Railroad v. HawkSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- O'Connor v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul RailwaySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1880
- Gray v. MerriamIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Clott v. GREYHOUND LINES, INCORPORATEDSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.