Legal Opinion
M. Degaro Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 24, 1930No. 22337Published
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
Since the bill of lading consigned the goods to a specified person, it was a straight bill. Title 49, Section 82, U. S. Code. If the contract between the consignor and the carrier had been represented by the straight bill only, without subsequent modification, delivery of the shipment by the carrier without surrender of the bill of lading would not have been wrongful. However, the request to reconsign the shipment, ordered that the present bill be changed to read, “Denney & Co. Cinti., Ohio Advise M. Degaro & Sons Route via IC B4. NOTE ON WAYBILL Permit inspection before unloading without…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. HaroldSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Furman v. . Union Pacific R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Coleman v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- In re NestoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921
- In re W. A. Paterson Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.