Bosworth v. Carr, Ryder & Engler Co.

Supreme Court

Bosworth v. Carr, Ryder & Engler Co.

179 U.S. 444, 21 S. Ct. 194, 45 L. Ed. 268, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1884

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 17, 1900

Docket14

StatusPublished

This text of 179 U.S. 444 (Bosworth v. Carr, Ryder & Engler Co.) 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

Bosworth v. Carr, Ryder & Engler Co., 179 U.S. 444, 21 S. Ct. 194, 45 L. Ed. 268, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1884 (1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim presented on this record was for the value of a quantity of. manufactured doors,'sash, blinds and moldings, shipped from Dubuque, Iowa, on October 20, 1894, and consigned to the May & Thomas Hardware Companjq Birmingham, Alabama, by way of East St. Louis. The car containing *445 the merchandise in question was received by the Peoria Company from the connecting earner, and, at about three o’clock on the afternoon of October 28, 1894, was deposited in its portion of the yard of the Terminal Association at East St. Louis set apart for the use of the Peoria Company, under the agreement referred to in the opinion just delivered in Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, No. 12 of this term. On the night of the date last mentioned the car and contents were destroyed by the same fire which consumed or damaged the property of the I-luntting Elevator Company. Both of the courts below decreed the liability of the Peoria Company, the Court of Appeals declaring that “ though in the physical possession, under its agreement with the receiver, of the car in which the goods were being transported, the Terminal Association had not become responsible as a carrier therefor, because it had not been put in possession of a way bill or other form of information on which it could proceed with the carriage.” It necessarily results from the views expressed by us in the Hantting Elevator Company case that the courts below did not err in the decrees rendered by them upon this claim.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Circuit Court, is accordingly

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

The claim presented on this record was for the value of a quantity of. manufactured doors,'sash, blinds and moldings, shipped from Dubuque, Iowa, on October 20, 1894, and consigned to the May & Thomas Hardware Companjq Birmingham, Alabama, by way of East St. Louis. The car containing *445 the merchandise in question was received by the Peoria Company from the connecting earner, and, at about three o’clock on the afternoon of October 28, 1894, was deposited in its portion of the yard of the Terminal Association at East St. Louis set apart for the use of the Peoria Company, under the agreement referred to in the opinion just delivered in Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, No. 12 of this term. On the night of the date last mentioned the car and contents were destroyed by the same fire which consumed or damaged the property of the I-luntting Elevator Company. Both of the courts below decreed the liability of the Peoria Company, the Court of Appeals declaring that “ though in the physical possession, under its agreement with the receiver, of the car in which the goods were being transported, the Terminal Association had not become responsible as a carrier therefor, because it had not been put in possession of a way bill or other form of information on which it could proceed with the carriage.” It necessarily results from the views expressed by us in the Hantting Elevator Company case that the courts below did not err in the decrees rendered by them upon this claim.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Circuit Court, is accordingly

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 U.S. 444, 21 S. Ct. 194, 45 L. Ed. 268, 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bosworth-v-carr-ryder-engler-co-scotus-1900.