Barrett v. Fournial
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtSwan, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Numerous assignments of error are addressed to the court’s ruling that the plaintiff’s recovery was not limited to the equivalent of 250 franes per case. We think the evidence is clear that, whatever may have been the original arrangement between the parties, the goods were ultimately held on a bailment for storage. Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 6 is a receipted bill, paid January 5, 1914, for 18 months’ storage and insurance. The defendant’s letter of February 12, 1914, introduced as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 7, states that they will hold the goods in storage as…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jones v. . MorganNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Chicago & E. R. v. Ohio City Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1914
- Jeffries v. SnyderSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Berry v. IngallsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Union Pac. R. v. LucasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Caten v. Salt City Movers & Storage Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Baltimore American Ins. Co. v. Pecos Mercantile Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1941
- Thomas v. National Delivery Ass'n, IncDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1937
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Plymouth Box & Panel Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Walsh v. SchaferDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.