Philadelphia & Camden Ferry Co. v. Johnson
New Jersey Court of Chancery
1Opinion of the Court
Leaking, Y. C.
This case does not fall within the principles defined in Thompson’s Express & Storage Co. v. Mount (New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals), 91 N. J. Eq. 497. In that case the railroad company was under no legal duty to allow hackmen to operate on the railroad property there in question. It is there also suggested that had that duty existed the contract might have been sustained, as in the Pullman Case, by the railroad company assuming to render the service by employing an agent for that purpose. Neither of these two material circumstances exist in this case. In each of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. FieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Exstrum v. Union Casualty and Life Insurance Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1958
- Exstrum v. Union Casualty and Life Insurance Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1958
- Yellow Cab Co. v. RisleyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1928