Blythe v. Denver & R. G. R'y Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Dist/rict Court of Ara/pahoe Coumdy. Plaihtiees in error brought suit against the defendant as a common carrier for the loss of a package of merchandise consisting of gold and silver watches, watch-cases and movements, of the alleged value of $726.95, delivered to defendant at Alamosa by, one J. B. Moomaw, to be carried as an express package, directed to and to be delivered to plaintiffs at Denver.
Read the full summary
Error to Dist/rict Court of Ara/pahoe Coumdy. Plaihtiees in error brought suit against the defendant as a common carrier for the loss of a package of merchandise consisting of gold and silver watches, watch-cases and movements, of the alleged value of $726.95, delivered to defendant at Alamosa by, one J. B. Moomaw, to be carried as an express package, directed to and to be delivered to plaintiffs at Denver. The package was not valued, and was accepted and receipted for as an ordinary package at a nominal valuation of $50, upon which charges of sixty-five cents were }Daid in advance for its…
1Opinion of the Court
Reed, C.
It is conceded that the wrecking of a portion of the train, such portion consisting of one engine and four cars, one being the express-car in which the goods were being carried, was by “ the act of God,” and inevitable. It is also conceded in argument that having a coal fire burning in a stove, and a lighted lamp in the compartment, as testified to, was not negligence on the part of the carrier. Counsel for plaintiffs in error in reply say: “ In the brief of defendant in error, counsel have assumed for us a claim which we have not made, and they then proceed to demolish such assumed…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Insurance Co. v. BoonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Insurance Co. v. TweedSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Insurance Co. v. Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1871
3Cited by16 opinions
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. PowersIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Guilford v. Foster & DavisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1927
- Cormack v. . N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1909
- Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. JoplingSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Terre Haute, Indianapolis & Eastern Traction Co. v. HunterIndiana Court of Appeals · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.