Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McLaughlin

Supreme Court

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McLaughlin

242 U.S. 142, 37 S. Ct. 40, 61 L. Ed. 207, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1540

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 4, 1916

Docket100

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 242 U.S. 142 (Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McLaughlin) 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

Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McLaughlin, 242 U.S. 142, 37 S. Ct. 40, 61 L. Ed. 207, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1540 (1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

McLaughlin recovered judgment against the railway company in the Circuit Court, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, for injuries to a horse which it transported from Lexington, Kentucky, and delivered to him at Seebert, West Virginia, February 17, 1914. ,

The shipment was under a “uniform live stock contract” signed by both parties and introduced in evidence by defendant in error which among other things provides:

“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 claim for such loss or damage shall be made in writing, verified by the affidavit of the said shipper or his agent and delivered to the General Claim Agent of the said carrier at his office in Richmond, Va., within five days from the time said stock is removed from said car or cars; and that if any loss or damages occur upon the line of a 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,”

It conclusively appears that McLaughlin did not present a verified claim to the carrier’s agent as provided by the contract. Upon its face the agreement seems to be unobjectionable and nothing in the record tends to establish circumstances rendering it invalid or excuse failure *144 to comply therewith. The court below erred in denying a seasonable request for a directed verdict; and its judgment must be reversed. Our recent opinions render unnecessary any further discussion of the reasons for this conclusion. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Wall, 241 U. S. 87; Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190; Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319.

Reverse and remand for further proceedings mot inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

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.

McLaughlin recovered judgment against the railway company in the Circuit Court, Pocahontas County, West Virginia, for injuries to a horse which it transported from Lexington, Kentucky, and delivered to him at Seebert, West Virginia, February 17, 1914. ,

The shipment was under a “uniform live stock contract” signed by both parties and introduced in evidence by defendant in error which among other things provides:

“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 claim for such loss or damage shall be made in writing, verified by the affidavit of the said shipper or his agent and delivered to the General Claim Agent of the said carrier at his office in Richmond, Va., within five days from the time said stock is removed from said car or cars; and that if any loss or damages occur upon the line of a 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,”

It conclusively appears that McLaughlin did not present a verified claim to the carrier’s agent as provided by the contract. Upon its face the agreement seems to be unobjectionable and nothing in the record tends to establish circumstances rendering it invalid or excuse failure *144 to comply therewith. The court below erred in denying a seasonable request for a directed verdict; and its judgment must be reversed. Our recent opinions render unnecessary any further discussion of the reasons for this conclusion. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Wall, 241 U. S. 87; Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190; Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319.

Reverse and remand for further proceedings mot inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 U.S. 142, 37 S. Ct. 40, 61 L. Ed. 207, 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesapeake-ohio-railway-co-v-mclaughlin-scotus-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack