Philadelphia & R. R. v. Barnard
District Court, E.D. New York
This was ail action brought, [by the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company' against John T. Barnard and Sons] to recover $287.92 freight on a portion of a cargo of coal transported and delivered by the libel-lants under the following circumstances: L. T. Conner & Co., at Philadelphia, shipped 214 tons of coal on board the boat of the libel-lants, for which the ordinary bill of lading was issued, according to which the coal was to be transported to New York, and there…
Read the full summary
This was ail action brought, [by the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company' against John T. Barnard and Sons] to recover $287.92 freight on a portion of a cargo of coal transported and delivered by the libel-lants under the following circumstances: L. T. Conner & Co., at Philadelphia, shipped 214 tons of coal on board the boat of the libel-lants, for which the ordinary bill of lading was issued, according to which the coal was to be transported to New York, and there delivered to the shippers or their assigns, he or they paying freight for the same at the rate mentioned therein. The…
1Opinion of the Court
BENEDICT, District Judge.
Upon the facts in this case which are not disputed, there can be no doubt of the libellants’ right to recover their freight of the defendants. It is clear law that whoever receives cargo from a ship under a bill of lading, in the absence of circumstances showing a different understanding, is liable to the ship for the freight. It is not absolutely necessary that a bill of lading should be actually indorsed, or even delivered to the buyer, to make him the as-signee thereof. Other circumstances may be shown equally sufficient to show the real relationship of a party to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Vane v. A. M. Wood & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1916
- North-German Lloyd v. HeuleDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1890
- Milos Product Tanker Corporation v. Valero Marketing and Supply CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024