Samuel v. Cheney
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, against a common carrier, for the conversion of a quantity of cigars. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Colburn, J., the jury returned a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The principal facts in this case, regarded in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are as follows:
In June, 1881, a swindler, assuming the name of A. Swan-nick, sent a letter to the plaintiff asking for a price list of cigars, and giving his address as “ A. Swannick, P. O. box 1595, Sara-toga Springs, N. Y.” The plaintiff replied, addressing his letter according to this direction. The swindler then sent another letter ordering a quantity of cigars. The plaintiff forwarded the cigars by the defendant, who is a common carrier, and at the same time sent a letter to the swindler addressed “…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Price v. . Oswego and Syracuse R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Dunbar v. Boston & Providence RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Winslow v. Vermont & Massachusetts RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1870
- American Express Co. v. FletcherIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by27 opinions
- Robertson v. ColemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
- Metzger v. Franklin BankIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Pacific Express Co. v. ShearerIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Boatsman v. Stockmen's National BankSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914
- Crippen, Lawrence & Co. v. American National BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.