Arthur v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. The plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, filed their complaint against the railway company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. The plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, filed their complaint against the railway company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division. The case arose under the laws of the United States, as the defendant was incorporated under an act of Congress, passed March 3, 1871, which act was amended by one passed May 2, 1872, among other things changing the name of the corporation to that under which it was sued in this case. Upon the trial the court directed a verdict for…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Peckham
The plaintiffs, in order to avoid the obstacle in the agreement in the third clause of the bill of lading, providing that defendant was not to be liable for damages to the cotton by fire, contend, as set up in the complaint, that the clause in the bill of lading was received under duress, and that it was unreasonable and without consideration. These contentions have 'been answered and overruled, upon much the same evidence, in the case of Cau v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 194 U. S. 427, and need not be further discussed.
With the fire clause in force, it became necessary for the plaintiffs, in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Commercial Union InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Cau v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- California Insurance v. Union Compress Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. McFaddenSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
3Cited by25 opinions
- Wichita Falls Compress v. W. L. MoodyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Gardiner v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Hooker v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Texas Midland Railroad v. H. L. Edwards & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1909
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. PapeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.