Walsh v. Adams Express Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 31, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, in suit of Mary T. Walsh et al., trading as Phil J. Walsh Estate, against Adams Express Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Per Curiam. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 31, Oct. T., 1900, by plaintiff, in suit of Mary T. Walsh et al., trading as Phil J. Walsh Estate, against Adams Express Company, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., discharging rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Per Curiam. Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Before the court in banc. . It appears from the record that plaintiff brought an action to recover the sum of $17.25 with interest from May 10, 1898, to recover the value of certain goods delivered to the defendant, company with directions to deliver same to…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Owing to the plaintiff’s negligence, the defendant was unable to deliver the package to the consignee at the address given by the plaintiffs. And if the facts averred in the affidavit of defense be established, it surely cannot be contended that the court could declare as matter of law that the defendant did not use due and reasonable diligence in its efforts to find the true address of the consignee. When a shipment arrives at its destination, and inability to deliver arises from lawful cause, it is not the law that the carrier is bound promptly to redeliver the shipment to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Corry v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1900
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sheehan v. American Railway Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
- Fineberg v. American Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
- Caps v. American Railway Express, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1922