Legal Opinion

Hubbard v. Olsen-Roe Transfer Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1924PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The complaint in this case is based upon defendant’s liability as a warehouseman, for hire, of plaintiffs’ household goods.

The “Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act” provides, among other things:

“A warehouseman shall be liable for any loss or injury to the goods caused by his failure to exercise such care in regard to them as a reasonably careful owner of similar goods would exercise, but he shall not be liable, in the absence of an agree-' ment to the contrary, for any loss or injury to the goods which could not have been avoided by the exercise of such care.” Or. L., § 8028.

Again:

“A warehouseman…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Smith v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Staten Island Midland Railroad v. HinchliffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  4. Harrison v. BirrellOregon Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Pitkin v. New York & New England RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Harris v. Northwest Natural Gas Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Klerk v. Tektronix, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Deering v. AlexanderOregon Supreme Court · 1978
  5. State Ex Rel. Moltzner v. MottOregon Supreme Court · 1939

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API