Pavitt v. Lehigh Valley R. R.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 53, July T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment oí C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., on verdict for plaintiff, Edwin H. Pavitt. Assumpsit on contract for carriage of live stock. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 53, July T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment oí C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., on verdict for plaintiff, Edwin H. Pavitt. Assumpsit on contract for carriage of live stock. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. At the trial defendant presented these points : “ 8. That by the terms of the contract of shipment it is provided that no claim for damages which should accrue to the plaintiff should be allowed or paid, or suit brought in any court, unless a claim for such loss or damage should be made in writing verified by an affidavit of the plaintiff or his agent, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Dean,
The plaintiff, on the 4th of April, 1890, by a through bill of lading, shipped a car load of horses, consigned to himself at *306Philadelphia, from Coldwater, Michigan. The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company at the point of shipment made the contract for transportation over its line and connecting roads, the Philadelphia & Reading and the Lehigh Valley, this defendant, to destination. The regular freight rate for the car load of seventeen horses was one hundred and twelve dollars ($112), but plaintiff by special agreement contracted with the railroad company…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Eckert v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Liquid Carbonic Co. v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1907
- Ward v. Gulf, M. N.R. Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1938
- Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
- Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. DaltonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.