Legal Opinion

Moss Lumber Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 25, 1929No. 2 Div. 943PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFoster, J.

It will be noted that the agreed statement of facts does not speak of a bill of lading, but refers to appellant as the shipper. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, it seems to be well settled that the shipper assumes the obligation to pay the freight charges whether the bill of lading so requires or not, and this obligation is ordinarily a primary one, and even though the bill of lading contains a provision imposing liability upon the consignee, “for the shipper is presumably the consignor. The transportation ordered by him is presumably on his own behalf; and a promise by him to…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Central Iron & Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
  2. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Sloss-sheffield Steel & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. New York Central Railroad v. Warren Ross Lumber Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
  4. Wells Fargo & Co. v. CuneoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1917
  5. Cleveland C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1922

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. New York Central Railroad v. Frank H. Buck Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Pennsylvania Railroad v. MarcellettiMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
  3. East Texas Motor Freight Lines v. Franklin County Distilling Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1944
  4. Illinois Cent. R. v. Western Smelting & Refining Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1954
  5. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Adams Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1944

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API