Martorana v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
City of New York Municipal Court
Action by the plaintiffs against the defendant carrier for "the value of certain fruit consigned to the plaintiffs but not delivered.
1Opinion of the CourtRansom, J.
The plaintiffs are entitled to judgment against the defendant carrier for the value of the goods consigned to them, notwithstanding the carrier’s claim that it yielded custody under compulsion of legal process and gave notice thereof to the plaintiffs. Inasmuch as counsel asked me to hear the case without a jury and presented with much ability a number of ■ questions which apparently have not been passed upon in reported decisions, it seems due to them to make a brief statement of the facts as found and of the reasons why, in this instance, the carrier’s plea of justification breaks down.
On…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Loeb v. . WillisNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- American Express Co. v. MullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Bliven Mead v. . Hudson River R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Western Transportation Co. v. . BarberNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.