Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Leach

Supreme Court

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Leach

249 U.S. 217, 39 S. Ct. 254, 63 L. Ed. 570, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2195

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 10, 1919

Docket132

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 249 U.S. 217 (Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Leach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Leach, 249 U.S. 217, 39 S. Ct. 254, 63 L. Ed. 570, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2195 (1919).

Pincite

Opinions

Mr, Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Respondent Leach sued the petitioners for damages sustained en route by cattle delivered at East St. Loui; [218]*218Illinois, October 1, 1914, for shipment to Georgetown, Kentucky. In defense the carriers set up non-compliance with the following provision contained in bill of lading issued as required by act of Congress: “That no claim for damages which may accrue to the said shipper under this contract shall be allowed or paid by the said carrier, or sued for in any court by the said shipper, unless a claim for loss or damages shall be máde in writing verified by the affidavit of the shipper or his agent, and delivered to the General Freight Agent of said carrier at his office in Cincinnati, Ohio, within five days from the time said stock is removed from said car or cars, and that if any loss or damage occurs upon the line of connecting carrier, then such carrier shall not be liable unless a claim shall be made in like manner and delivered in like time, to some proper officer or agent of the carrier on whose line the loss or injury occurs.” This averment was not denied; but the shipper replied that he promptly advised the railroad’s agent at Georgetown of all essential facts and maintained that requirement in respect of written notice to general freight agent had been waived.

The point involved has been discussed in our recent opinions and we can find nothing which takes this case out of the rule requiring compliance with a provision in a bill of lading like the one above quoted. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & Southern Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592; Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U. S. 446.

The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur in the result.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr, Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Respondent Leach sued the petitioners for damages sustained en route by cattle delivered at East St. Loui; [218]*218Illinois, October 1, 1914, for shipment to Georgetown, Kentucky. In defense the carriers set up non-compliance with the following provision contained in bill of lading issued as required by act of Congress: “That no claim for damages which may accrue to the said shipper under this contract shall be allowed or paid by the said carrier, or sued for in any court by the said shipper, unless a claim for loss or damages shall be máde in writing verified by the affidavit of the shipper or his agent, and delivered to the General Freight Agent of said carrier at his office in Cincinnati, Ohio, within five days from the time said stock is removed from said car or cars, and that if any loss or damage occurs upon the line of connecting carrier, then such carrier shall not be liable unless a claim shall be made in like manner and delivered in like time, to some proper officer or agent of the carrier on whose line the loss or injury occurs.” This averment was not denied; but the shipper replied that he promptly advised the railroad’s agent at Georgetown of all essential facts and maintained that requirement in respect of written notice to general freight agent had been waived.

The point involved has been discussed in our recent opinions and we can find nothing which takes this case out of the rule requiring compliance with a provision in a bill of lading like the one above quoted. St. Louis, Iron Mt. & Southern Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592; Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U. S. 446.

The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice Pitney and Mr. Justice Brandéis concur in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 U.S. 217, 39 S. Ct. 254, 63 L. Ed. 570, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baltimore-ohio-railroad-v-leach-scotus-1919.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack