Legal Opinion

Baldwin v. Liverpool & Great Western Steamship Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 11, 1878PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee. (Reported below, 11 Hun," 496.) This action was brought to recover back a sum of money-alleged to have been paid under duress of goods.

Read the full summary

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, entered upon the report of a referee. (Reported below, 11 Hun," 496.) This action was brought to recover back a sum of money-alleged to have been paid under duress of goods. The referee found, in substance, among other things, the following: On or about the 17th of January, 1872, the plaintiffs delivered to the defendants, who were carriers between New "York and Liverpool, at New York, for transportation to Liverpool, two boxes, addressed .to…

1Opinion of the Court

Church, Ch. J.

It is not disputed but that if the defendant was not legally entitled to exact the £200, for the transportation of the boxes, the plaintiffs aré entitled to recover it back as having been paid under duress of goods.

The defendant might, and probably ought to have charged and been paid more than six dollars for carrying the two boxes to Liverpool, but it is difficult to find any principle of law under the findings of fact in the case, to sustain the defendant’s claim for a greater compensation than that agreed upon. The referee found that “ the plaintiffs did not use any deceit…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Orange County Bank v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  2. Magnin v. . DinsmoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1875

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. EstillSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. The First National Bank of Cincinnati v. Sidney Pepper, Elsie W. Cox, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellants, Modern Talking Picture Service, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1972
  3. Kilpatrick v. . Germania Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
  4. Lonergan v. BufordSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  5. Nathan v. WoolvertonNew York Supreme Court · 1910

8 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