Seibert v. Railway Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, in suit of D. S, Seibert & Hugh J. Miller, trading as Seibert & Miller, against the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1898, No. 83, on verdict for defendant. Opinion by W. W. Porter, J. Assumpsit. Before Ermentrout, P. J. The facts sufficiently appear from the charge of the court below which is as follows : Messrs.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, in suit of D. S, Seibert & Hugh J. Miller, trading as Seibert & Miller, against the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, from judgment of C. P. Berks Co., Aug. T., 1898, No. 83, on verdict for defendant. Opinion by W. W. Porter, J. Assumpsit. Before Ermentrout, P. J. The facts sufficiently appear from the charge of the court below which is as follows : Messrs. Seibert & Miller bring a claim against the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company for the payment of damages amounting to #295 which they allege they sustained though the negligence…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Porter, J.,
The learned court below directed a verdict for the defendant. He bases his action on two grounds. First, that the contract of carriage released the carrier from liability for acts done by succeeding carriers. Second,'that in the delivery of the goods no negligence was committed. If either ground be tenable, the judgment is right. Let it be assumed that the contract was for transportation to destination. The delivery was made to the consignee who ordered the goods; whose place of business was given upon the package; who presented and surrendered the bill of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dickman v. Daniels Motor Freight, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
- Davis v. Western Union Telegraph Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Washington County1954