Legal Opinion

Pottash v. Director General of Railroads

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

Decided June 12, 1923No. 3767Published

1Opinion of the Court

Martin, P. J.,

An action of assumpsit was instituted by plaintiffs to recover from defendant, a terminal carrier, compensation for damages to a shipment of burlap received by the initial carrier in good condition, but delivered to plaintiffs by the terminal carrier wet and stained with paint.

During the trial plaintiffs were allowed to amend the record by adding the Christian and surnames “William G. McAdoo” to the title of defendant “Director General of Railroads.”

On behalf of plaintiffs, there was offered in evidence a bill of lading issued by the initial carrier, reciting that the property…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dalmas v. KembleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
  2. Wray, Moore & Co. v. American Ry. Ex. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Howard v. American Express Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911

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

Powered by the Exa API