Legal Opinion · Dissent

Watts v. Southern Railway Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 16, 1926No. 12125Published

1DissentJustice Cothran

(dissenting) : I think that, when-the goods were refused by the consignee, and the carrier was directed to return them to the shippers, the original status of the parties under the bill of lading was terminated, and a. new status created, imposing upon the carrier the obligation to return the goods, a status unaffected by the time limitation in the contract of carriage which had been terminated,, and that for the unaccountable mishandling' of the goods, amounting to a conversion, a tort, the carrier should respond in damages for the value of the goods, regardless of the time: limitation. 10…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chicago & Southeastern Railway Co. v. Fifth National BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. M. W. Savage Factories, Inc. v. Canadian Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API