Collier v. Swinney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Saline Circuit Court. contended that the law governing common carriers does not apply. The defendant, though a common carrier, took’ upon himself, by his express contract, a duty greater than the law would impose, and having done so for a legal consideration, he cannot set up the acts of God as any excuse for his non- compliance with the contract.
Read the full summary
Error to Saline Circuit Court. contended that the law governing common carriers does not apply. The defendant, though a common carrier, took’ upon himself, by his express contract, a duty greater than the law would impose, and having done so for a legal consideration, he cannot set up the acts of God as any excuse for his non- compliance with the contract. He onght to have guarded against such contingencies in his contract.' Chitty on Contracts, 784. Thompson v. Miles, 7 T. R. 884. The only acts of God which would excuse a common carrier are inevitable accidents not foreseen by him, and…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
The defendant, Swinney, was part owner of the steamboat Wapello, and Eaton the master. - She was employed as a weekly packet between Glasgow and St. Louis. Eaton contracted, as master, in 1846, with the plaintiff Collier, to transport the tobacco which Collier then had at Glasgow, to St. Louis, for two dollars and fifty cents per hogshead ; and such other tobacco as Collier might deliver at Glasgow on or before the first of September, was to be transported to St. *486Louis, in a reasonable time after its delivery, for two dollars per hogshead. Collier complains that tobacco which he delivered at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Parsons v. HardyNew York Supreme Court · 1835
3Cited by7 opinions
- Branch v. Wilmington & Weldon RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
- Whittemore v. SillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Meriwether v. Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Taylor v. Steamboat Robert CampbellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- T. E. Law & Co. v. PaxtonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.