Legal Opinion
Shore v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 1, 1923PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.
To support this action against the defendant, a common carrier of goods, the plaintiff must have established (1) the delivery of the goods to the carrier; (2) the undertaking on its part to transport them to the named consignee; and (3) the breach of its contract by the defendant through its failure to deliver the goods to the consignee. The finding fails to show the fact of the delivery of the goods to the defendant; all that it shows is the delivery to the defendant of a box purporting to contain shirts. “The law is well settled that until the goods to be carried are delivered for immediate…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pollard v. VintonSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. KnightSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Miller v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Mears v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Cunard S. S. Co. v. KelleyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wells Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Hoover Motor Express Company, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1959
- Goldberg v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1931
- Lincoln Farm Products Corp. v. Central RRNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1963
- Ohio Galvanizing & Mfg. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1930
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.