Frohlich v. Pennsylvania Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Case by Edward Frohlich, doing business as the Edward Frohlich Glass Company, against the Pennsylvania Company for damages to glass alleged to have been shipped in a defective car. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. There is no substantial disagreement as to the facts of this case.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Case by Edward Frohlich, doing business as the Edward Frohlich Glass Company, against the Pennsylvania Company for damages to glass alleged to have been shipped in a defective car. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. There is no substantial disagreement as to the facts of this case. Plaintiff, doing business in Toledo, Ohio, purchased from the Heidencamp Mirror Company, of Spring-dale, Pa., a carload of plate glass, inboxes weighing from 500 to'3,500 pounds each. The glass was consigned and shipped by the defendant railroad company to the…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. In a well-considered case by this court it was held that the consignor is the agent of the consignee in the shipment of goods, and that whatever contract he (the consignor) makes with the common carrier is binding upon the consignee. McMillan v. Railroad Co., 16 Mich. 79, 118. It was there said that the authority of the consignor to enter into special contracts with the carrier is to be presumed, and the carrier is under no obligation to inquire into it. The same rule is held in Ryan v. Railway Co., 65 Tex. 13, where many authorities are cited.
Upon the record now…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. PrattSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- W. A. Ryan & Co. v. M., K. & T. R'y Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1886
- McMillan v. Mich. S. & N. I. R. R.Michigan Supreme Court · 1867
- Ross v. Troy & Boston RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Harris v. . Northern Indiana Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Lux Art Van Service, Inc., a California Corporation v. Art PollardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1965
- Bonfiglio v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- AJ Tebbe & Sons Company v. Brown ExpressTexas Supreme Court · 1960
- Nicholson v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. National Fruit Products Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1930
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.