Conrad Schopp Fruit Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 84, April T., 1910, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Third Term, 1907, No. 169, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Conrad Schopp Fruit Company v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. Assumpsit for loss of car of tomatoes. Before Cohen, J. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $70.95. Defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
Under the evidence presented at the trial it does not seem to be important whether the liability of the defendant is to be determined according to the terms of the bill of lading delivered by the initial carrier to the plaintiff or under the waybill received by the defendant with the car. The bill of lading required that the car be iced every twenty-four hours, while the “card waybill” issued by the first company to the defendant contained a direction that the car be iced at Columbus and the defendant offered evidence to show that on the evening of August 1, at…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hoffman v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Nemcof v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Oelbermann v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki KaishaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925