Fairmont Coal Co. v. Jones & Adams Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff in error sued in assumpsit to recover the value of certain coal consigned to the defendant, and lost while in the defendant’s possession; also to recover the balance due upon open account, and for the proceeds of the sale of certain other coal consigned and not accounted for.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff in error sued in assumpsit to recover the value of certain coal consigned to the defendant, and lost while in the defendant’s possession; also to recover the balance due upon open account, and for the proceeds of the sale of certain other coal consigned and not accounted for. The plaintiff in error, a corporation of the state of West Virginia, shipped coal, upon consignment, to the defendant in error at Ashland, Wis. The latter had leased a dock extending over and into the waters of Ashland…
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, Circuit Judge
The relation created by the contract in question, as between the parties thereto, was that of principal and agent, principal and factor, bailor *713•and bailee. The common-law duty of the bailee with respect to the thing bailed is to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill for its preservation. He is not liable for loss or injury to the thing bailed, occurring either by vis major, or from unforeseen and unexpected causes not naturally to be expected, and which could not be guarded against by reasonable foresight. He is not an insurer. It is, of course, competent for the bailee to enlarge…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Harmony v. . BinghamNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Direct Navigation Co. v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1903
- Coal Co. v. RichterWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
- Tindall v. McCarthySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. Leo LutzCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
- Grady v. SchweinlerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1907
- International Feed Products, Inc. v. Alfalfa Products, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
- Mill Factors Corp. v. Ming Toy Dyeing Co.District Court, D. New York · 1941
- Commercial Acetylene Supply Co. v. FoxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.