Hartwell v. Northern P. E. Co.
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota
Appeal from the district court of Richland county; Hon. W. R. McConnell, Judge. The clause in the receipt was not complied with. Was the -clause valid and binding? Whatever doubts may formerly have existed, this question ■ cannot now be considered an open one, and must be answered affirmatively. Such a regulation is not unreasonable, and must be complied with as a condition precedent to the right to recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Richland county; Hon. W. R. McConnell, Judge. The clause in the receipt was not complied with. Was the -clause valid and binding? Whatever doubts may formerly have existed, this question ■ cannot now be considered an open one, and must be answered affirmatively. Such a regulation is not unreasonable, and must be complied with as a condition precedent to the right to recover. Express Company v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264; Goggin v. Kansas Pacific R. Co., 12 Kan. 416; Cole v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 33 Minn. 227, 22 N. W. Rep. 385. There is not a scintilla of…
1Opinion of the CourtTripp, C. J.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff for-recovery of the value of a certain trunk and its contents, lost by *465the defendant express company in shipping over its line from Wahpeton to Wyndmere, in the territory of Dakota.
The defense, so far as it affects this appeal, was that the trunk was shipped by plaintiff under an express contract with the defendant that the defendant, in case of loss, should not be responsible in a greater sum than $50; and that in no event should the defendant be liable for loss unless the claim therefor should be presented to the defendant in writing, at its office…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. MERCHANTS'BANK.Supreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Express Co. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- York Company v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Cole v. Goodwin & StoryNew York Supreme Court · 1838
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Meuer v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1894
- Hazel v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1891
- Kirby v. Western Union Telegraph Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
- Hanson v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1909
- Midland Valley R. Co. v. EzellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.