Schwartz v. Panama Railroad Co.
California Supreme Court
“Beeeived by the Panama Bailroad Company . . . under the contract hereinafter contained, the property mentioned below . . . Consigned to Jacob Schwartz at Los Angeles, to be transported by steamship Seguranca ... to the port of Colon, and there ... if destined beyond, to be there delivered to connecting carrier and so on by one connecting carrier to another, until they reach the station or port nearest to the ultimate destination.
Read the full summary
“Beeeived by the Panama Bailroad Company . . . under the contract hereinafter contained, the property mentioned below . . . Consigned to Jacob Schwartz at Los Angeles, to be transported by steamship Seguranca ... to the port of Colon, and there ... if destined beyond, to be there delivered to connecting carrier and so on by one connecting carrier to another, until they reach the station or port nearest to the ultimate destination. If their ultimate destination be beyond the point for which rates are named, as per margin, they may by the connecting carrier nearest to such ultimate destination,…
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, in an action brought to recover damages for the failure of defendant to comply with the terms of an alleged contract of carriage.
The material facts established by undenied allegations of the complaint or evidence as to which there was no conflict were as follows: Defendant is a corporation organized, existing, and doing business as a common carrier for hire of goods, wares, and merchandise, under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New York. It owns and operates a line…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Myrick v. Michigan Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Jennings v. Grand Trunk RailwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Condict v. Grand Trunk Railway CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Cavallaro v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Palmer v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fé R.R.California Supreme Court · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Maloney v. Winston Bros.Idaho Supreme Court · 1910