John Ainsfield Co. v. Rasmussen
Utah Supreme Court
' Appeal from District Court, Weber county; J. A. Hoivell, J udge. Action by Tbe John Ainsfield Company against O. D. Rasmussen. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. APPELLANT'S POINTS. These bills of lading represented the goods.
Read the full summary
' Appeal from District Court, Weber county; J. A. Hoivell, J udge. Action by Tbe John Ainsfield Company against O. D. Rasmussen. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. APPELLANT'S POINTS. These bills of lading represented the goods. The defendant could not secure the goods from the railroad company without the presentation of the receipt (the bill of lading) for the goods and when'plaintiff accepted the bills of lading without returning them to defendant it thereby constituted an acceptance of the goods from defendant, and the instruction requested by defendant should have been…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCARTY, J.
Defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court to instruct the jury that, “if the evidence is equally balanced, your verdict must be for the defendant, no cause of action.” One of the defenses set up by defendant in this case was the alleged failure of plaintiff to ship the goods mentioned as agreed upon at the time they were ordered, and that they arrived too late for the fall trade, and defendant was thereby unable to dispose of them. This was new matter. The burden of proving the issue raised by it was upon the defendant. As the foregoing request is not limited or confined to the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hickey v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1905
3Cited by1 opinion
- Beggs v. ClaytonUtah Supreme Court · 1911