Nemcof v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 124, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 2,631, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles Nemcof v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Assumpsit to recover for the nondelivery of goods. Before Kinsey, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $458.50. Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 124, Oct. T., 1908, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 2,631, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Charles Nemcof v. The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company. Assumpsit to recover for the nondelivery of goods. Before Kinsey, J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $458.50. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were (1, 2) refusal of binding instructions for defendant, and (3) ruling on evidence, quoted in the opinion of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Head, J.,
The evidence in this case, which is brief and practically un*543disputed, is sufficient, we think, to have warranted the jury in finding the following facts: The plaintiff is a wholesale merchant, doing business in the city of Philadelphia. On or about November 4, 1905, he delivered to the defendant railroad company, two separate packages to be transported and delivered to Hooke & Co., of Cincinnati. A single receipt or bill of lading was given by the company for both packages, they being therein described as “one case and bale of woolens.” That in due course “the one case”…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eckert v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- American Express Co. v. Second National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1872
3Cited by1 opinion
- Conrad Schopp Fruit Co. v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910