Legal Opinion
The Sagadahoc
District Court, W.D. Washington
Decided June 1, 1923No. 7562PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
NETERER, District Judge.
It is contended by the libelant that the action is based upon a common-law liability, and that the condition-is an exception which must be asserted as a defense. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mooresville Cotton Mills, 187 Fed. 72, 109 C. C. A. 390; The H. S. Grove (D. C.) 283 Fed. 1019. The recovery in the instant caséis- clearly upon the contract of shipment evidenced by the bill of lading. *921The quoted provision in the bill of lading was accepted by the shipper, and is a part of the contract, which places upon the shipper the duty of advising the carrier of a loss for damages at…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- The PersianaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1911
- The WestminsterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1904
- The Arctic BirdDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1901
- Metropolitan Trust Co. of New York v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1901
- Southern Ry. Co. v. Mooresville Cotton MillsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. Munson S. S. LineCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1927
- Brennan Packing Co. v. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1925
- Home Insurance v. Los Angeles Warehouse Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Louisville N. R. Co. v. Home Fruit Produce Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1949
- The Commercial GuideDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1928
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.