The "Idaho."
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The libellants claim .damages against the “ Idaho ” for the non-delivery of one hundred and sixty-five bales of cotton, part of a shipment of two hundred bales for Liverpool, made by Thomas W. Mann, and consigned to the order of James Finlay & Co. After the shipment, the libellants purchased the cotton from Mann, who indorsed, to them the ship’s bill of lading therefor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The libellants claim .damages against the “ Idaho ” for the non-delivery of one hundred and sixty-five bales of cotton, part of a shipment of two hundred bales for Liverpool, made by Thomas W. Mann, and consigned to the order of James Finlay & Co. After the shipment, the libellants purchased the cotton from Mann, who indorsed, to them the ship’s bill of lading therefor. On the arrival of the vessel at Liverpool, thirty-five bales were delivered to Finlay & Co., but the remaining one hundred and sixty-five…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Strong
In determining the merits of the defence set up in this case,- it is necessary to inquire whether the law permits a common carrier to show, as an excuse for non-delivery pursuant to his bill of lading, that he has delivered the goods upon demand to the true owner. Upon this subject there has been much debate in courts of law, and some contrariety of decision.
In Rolle’s Ábr. 606, tit. “ Detinue,” it is said, “ If the bailee of goods deliver them to him who has the right to them, he is, notwithstanding, chargeable to the bailor, who in truth has no right; ” and for this, 9 Henry VI. 58, is…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hart v. EyckNew York Court of Chancery · 1816
- Bliven Mead v. . Hudson River R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Western Transportation Co. v. . BarberNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Bates v. StantonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
- King v. RichardsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by107 opinions
- Wolfe v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- United States v. GoldsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1941
- United States v. All Funds Presently on Deposit or Attempted to Be Deposited in Any Accounts Maintained at American Express BankDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1993
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. HaasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Claflin & Co. v. Continental Jersey WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
102 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.