Legal Opinion
Gottesman & Co. v. Portland Terminal Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided July 21, 1942PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHudson, J.
These two actions for breach of storage contracts were tried together before a referee and come up on exceptions to acceptance of his reports. Of the objections filed only those that have to do with assessment of damages need present consideration.
The defendant, with agreed responsibility of a warehouseman (Chap. 163, Sec. 21, R. S. 1930), received wood pulp from each plaintiff and stored it in box cars on three different tracks *92in its Yard No. 9 in Portland. It consisted of 1875 bales delivered on March 8,1937, by Gottesman & Company, Inc. and 2319 bales delivered on April 9, 1937, by Morton…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. GelvinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
- Priest v. NicholsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Hincks Coal Co. v. MilanSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1937
- Bowley v. SmithSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1932
- Fogg v. HallSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Michaud v. SteckinoSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1978
- Merrill Trust Co. v. StateSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- Triple-A Baseball Club Associates v. Northeastern Baseball, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 1987
- Lawson v. McLeodSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1956