Camp v. Hartford & New York Steamboat Co.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit against the . defendants as common carriers; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The declaration was as follows: That on or about the 29th day of May, 1875, the defendants were and for a long time previous thereto had been common carriers of goods and merchandise for hire, in and by certain steamboats of said defendants, plying between the city of New York in the state of New York, and the town of Middletown in the state of Connecticut; and being…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against the . defendants as common carriers; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The declaration was as follows: That on or about the 29th day of May, 1875, the defendants were and for a long time previous thereto had been common carriers of goods and merchandise for hire, in and by certain steamboats of said defendants, plying between the city of New York in the state of New York, and the town of Middletown in the state of Connecticut; and being such common carriers, on the day and year last aforesaid, at the special instance and request of the defendants, the…
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
In an action of assumpsit, where the contract is of the very essence of the action, greater exactness in pleading is demanded than where the action is in tort, and the contract is referred to merely by way of inducement. In an action on a contract, even a trivial variation is often fatal, because it destroys the identity of the contract. Curley v. Dean, 4 Conn., 264; Russell v. South Britain, 9 Conn., 512.
The declaration in the case under consideration predicates the defendants’ liability, not upon negligence merely, but upon the fact that the defendants are common carriers, and as such…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. LockwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
- New Jersey Steam Navigation Company v. MERCHANTS'BANK.Supreme Court of the United States · 1848
- York Company v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Grace v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Adams Express Co. v. HaynesIllinois Supreme Court · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Coupland v. Housatonic R. R. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1892
- Irish & Swartz Stores v. First National BankOregon Supreme Court · 1960
- Pilson v. Tip-Top Auto Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1913
- Scott Auto & Supply Co. v. McQueenSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
- Inland Compress Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.