Cutts v. Brainerd
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit before tbe recorder’s court of tbe city of Burlington, and came into tbe county court by appeal. Plea, tbe general issue. Trial by jury, April term, 1869, Pier-point, C. J., presiding.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit before tbe recorder’s court of tbe city of Burlington, and came into tbe county court by appeal. Plea, tbe general issue. Trial by jury, April term, 1869, Pier-point, C. J., presiding. On tbe trial of tbe cause in tbe county court, it was admitted by tbe defendants that they were common carriers of goods and chattels, operating and managing tbe Vermont Central and Vermont & Canada Railroads in 1866, and at the time the goods in question were received for transportation by them; that G-. S. Appleton was tbe authorized freight agent of tbe defendants in charge of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
A majority of the court are of opinion that the receipt in this case, of itself, constitutes a contract between the parties that the defendants, being common carriers, would carry said box to its destination — Brooklyn, Iowa — as per the marks thereon. As giving such character and effect to the paper, much importance is attached to the fact that the blanks were left unfilled. This effect given to the receipt renders it needless to consider the question, very much discussed in the argument, whether railroad companies, as common carriers, are…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Newell v. Smith & ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- In Re DawleySupreme Court of Vermont · 1926
- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. FairbanksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Florida Central & Peninsula Railroad v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1908
- Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Central Vt. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Vermont · 1898