Midland Linseed Co. v. American Liquid Fireproofing Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Cerro Gordo District Court. — J. J. Clark, . Judge. On this appeal, the sole question is whether the defendant railroad is liable to the plaintiff company because of an alleged misdelivery of an interstate shipment entrusted by the plaintiff to said railroad company. The district court held the railroad was thus liable, and defendant appeals.—
1Opinion of the CourtSalinger, J.
I. We need not consider whether ‘ it would help the plaintiff if its allegation that the defendants colluded were proved. There is absolutely no evidence of any collusion or bad faith.
1. Carriers : delivery without bill: subsequent acquisition. The defendant Fire Proofing Company ordered a carload of oil of plaintiff. Plaintiff shipped the car over the defendant railroad, and consigned it to itself. At the same time, it sent the bill of lading to the defendant bank, with draft for the amount of the purchase price attached. It was the duty of the bank not to surrender this bill of lading to…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Nanson v. JacobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Kearney Milling & Elevator Co. v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- Eadie, Guilford & Co. v. AshbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Forbes v. Boston and Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- International Harvester Co. of America v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Hueston v. Preferred Accident InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Payne v. KnappSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
- Feinerman v. NatelsonSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1970
- Adel Precision Products Corp. v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.