Dixon v. Dunham
Illinois Supreme Court
The plaintiff in error was the master of propeller Illinois, navigating between Buffalo and Chicago. The defendant in error shipped certain goods on this propeller at Buffalo to be conveyed to Chicago. The plaintiff in error brought the goods, and delivered them on the wharf of Dole, Rumsey & Co., and gave notice to the defendant in error of the arrival of the goods.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff in error was the master of propeller Illinois, navigating between Buffalo and Chicago. The defendant in error shipped certain goods on this propeller at Buffalo to be conveyed to Chicago. The plaintiff in error brought the goods, and delivered them on the wharf of Dole, Rumsey & Co., and gave notice to the defendant in error of the arrival of the goods. The defendant in error refused to receive them at the wharf ■ where they had been left, and demanded that the goods should be delivered to him in person, or at his own wharf. This being refused, the defendant in error made a…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, J.
From the diversified character of our commerce, this question which is now for the first time presented to this court for adjudication, is one of very considerable importance. While the convenience of commerce may require different rules for the delivery of goods, when transported by sail or steam vessels on the great lakes, on the rivers, on the canal, or by railroad, by plank, or the common roads, it would be very inconvenient for each commercial point on these thoroughfares to establish an independent usage by which the same contract-would receive different constructions depending…
2Cited by20 opinions
- Ala. & Tenn. Rivers Railroad v. KiddSupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- J. B. Lyon & Co. v. Culbertson, Blair & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1876
- McCulsky v. KlostermanOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Phenix Insurance v. MungerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
- Illinois Central Railroad v. CarterIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.