Block v. Fitchburg Railroad
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract, against the Fitchburg Railroad Company and seven other railroad corporations, described in the writ as “ doing business together as a line for the purpose of carrying freight, under the name of ‘ Erie and North Shore Despatch,’ ” and having a usual place of business in Boston.
Read the full summary
Contract, against the Fitchburg Railroad Company and seven other railroad corporations, described in the writ as “ doing business together as a line for the purpose of carrying freight, under the name of ‘ Erie and North Shore Despatch,’ ” and having a usual place of business in Boston. The declaration alleged a delivery of a package of goods to the defendants at Boston, to be delivered to the plaintiff at Denver, Colorado, under a bill of lading, and the non-delivery thereof. The bill of lading, which was headed “ Erie and North Shore Despatch Fast Freight Line,” and acknowledged the receipt…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
The evidence at the trial tended to show that the several defendant corporations formed an association or company under the name of the “ Erie and North Shore Despatch Fast Freight Line,” for the transportation of merchandise between Boston and Chicago; that the association had an agent in Boston, who was authorized to receive goods at Boston for transportation over the line to Chicago, and to give bills of lading or contracts for transportation like the one upon which the plaintiff sues; that the plaintiff delivered goods to such agent, and received the bill of lading in suit, and that a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Burroughs v. Norwich & Worcester RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Hill Manufacturing Co. v. Boston & Lowell RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Gass v. New York, Providence & Boston RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Aigen v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
3Cited by9 opinions
- Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. DupontCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1904
- Mills v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- R. E. Funsten Dried Fruit & Nut Co. v. Toledo, St. Louis & Western RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Crockett v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. SanfordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.