Gashweiler v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court. — Hon. Geo. H. Burckhartt, Judge. Under the pleadings and the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court. — Hon. Geo. H. Burckhartt, Judge. Under the pleadings and the evidence, plaintiff was not entitled to recover. It was not liable as a common carrier, for the transit was ended and the goods were safely stored before the fire.- Angelí on Carriers, sec. 304; Story on Bailments (9th Ed.), secs. 448 and 538; Thomas v. R. R., 10 Met. 472; Noway, &c. v. R. R., 1 Gray 263; Rice v. Hart, 118 Mass. 208; Holtzclaw v. Duff, 27 Mo. 394; Cramer v. Express Co., 56 Mo. 524. Nor was it liable as a warehouseman for'hire by reason of its failure to provide a fire-proof…
1Dissent
Norton, J.,
dissenting. — There is a conflict of authority as to whether it is the duty of a common carrier as such when goods transported arrive at their destination, to notify the consignee or owner of their arrival, and allow such owner a reasonable -time after such notice to remove them. Whatever conflict and diversity of opinion may exist upon this question, an examination of the authorities will show, that they agree in announcing the principle that when goods arrive at their destination, it is the duty of the carrier to deliver them to the owner or consignee, if he is there to receive…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilson Sewing Machine Co. v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879