Legal Opinion

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Murphy

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided April 15, 1924No. 14616PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

MAXEY, C.

The plaintiff in error has assigned 10 specifications of error, but has grouped its arguments under five heads, namely:(1) The bills of lading constituted entire contract between the plaintiffs and defendant.(2) The rights of the parties are to be determined by the Acts of Congress, the bills of lading and the common law.(3) The verdict is contrary to law and the evidence.

(.4) The plaintiffs are not the real parties in interest and have no capacity to sue.(5) The consignee waived the delivery specified in the bills of lading and neither consignee nor plaintiffs can recover.

U…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Illinois Central Railroad v. Cobb, Christy & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Olivit BrothersSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  3. Railroad v. Cabinet Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Implement Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1906
  5. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Tiger v. FewellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API