Reel v. Adams Express Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 3185, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Estelle Reel v. Adams Express Company. Exceptions to report of referee.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 139, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Pbila. Co., Dec. T., 1901, No. 3185, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Estelle Reel v. Adams Express Company. Exceptions to report of referee. Frank P. Prichard, Esq., the referee, reported the facts to be as follows: Plaintiff being the owner of fur garments of the value of $350, which were in storage with a furrier in Philadelphia, directed the furrier to ship the same by Adams Express Company to the plaintiff, at Washington. The furrier had been accustomed to shipping goods by Adams Express…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
by Smith, J.,
The objections to the form of the referee’s report are without merit. The only matter in controversy was whether the plaintiff’s goods were received by the defendant company, through an authorized agent. The referee finds, as a fact, that they were so received; and the evidential facts on which this finding is based are concisely set forth. The defendant’s liability is the only conclusion of law arising from this finding, and this is clearly stated by the referee.
The defendant company, in the collection and delivery of express matter, maintained a number of teams, driven…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hershinger v. Pennsylvania RailroadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1904
3Cited by2 opinions
- Robb v. American Railway Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Dintenfass v. American Railway Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922