Levy v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Supreme Court of Louisiana
APPEAL from the Cíyü District Ccnrt for the Parish of Orleans. haearus, J. 1. The manner in which defendant received and detained at Mobile the property in question gave rise to an implied contract between plaintiff and defendant, that defendant would, as a common carrier, transport that property to LTew Orleans and there deliver it in good condition to plaintiff’s consignee. Bank of Kentucky vs. Express Co., 93 TX.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Cíyü District Ccnrt for the Parish of Orleans. haearus, J. 1. The manner in which defendant received and detained at Mobile the property in question gave rise to an implied contract between plaintiff and defendant, that defendant would, as a common carrier, transport that property to LTew Orleans and there deliver it in good condition to plaintiff’s consignee. Bank of Kentucky vs. Express Co., 93 TX. S. 174. 2. The employment by defendant of the Mobile and Ohio Bailroad Company, the Vicksburg and Meridian Bailroad Company, and the Chicago, St. Louis anil Kew Orleans Baihoad…
1Opinion of the Court
The opiuion of the Court: was delivered by
Fennek, J.
The plaintiff shipped four carloads of mules from Sfc. Louis to New Orleans on the Sfc. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern *617Railroad and its connecting lines. Over the first named road and the Mobile & Ohio road the mules were transported to Mobile, Ala., and there delivered to, and received by, the defendant, as the last connecting carrier. Owing to damage to its road by storm, defendant was unable to forward the mules over its own line. After several days detention in Mobile, defendant shipped the mules, in its own name and consigned to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Howrin v. ClarkSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844
3Cited by2 opinions
- Muntz v. Algiers & G. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- N. O. Public Service, Inc. v. StewartLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1928