Cote v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad

65 N.E. 400, 182 Mass. 290, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1015
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 65 N.E. 400 (Cote v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cote v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 65 N.E. 400, 182 Mass. 290, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1015 (Mass. 1902).

Opinion

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action for damage to freight delivered by the plaintiff to the Boston and Maine Railroad at Lawrence to he carried to New Bedford, and delivered by that road to the defendant for the latter to complete the transportation. The freight was in a sealed car, and it does not appear by which road the damage was done. The case was submitted to the Superior Court on agreed facts with power to draw inferences, and that court ordered judgment for the plaintiff. The [291]*291defendant appealed, rather in the hope that this court might discover some distinction between freight and passenger’s baggage than on any articulate reason for supposing one to exist. We have failed to make the discovery. As was pointed out in Moore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 173 Mass. 335, 337, the so-called presumption that the harm was done on the last road, although started as a presumption of fact, has been fortified if not maintained on grounds of convenience. These grounds apply equally to freight.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

Related

A. S. Burg Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
8 Mass. App. Dec. 3 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1954)
Goodman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
3 N.E.2d 777 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Thomas McCabe Industries v. Pennsylvania Railroad
11 Pa. D. & C. 460 (Potter County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
Lyon v. Boston & Maine Railroad
158 N.E. 663 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1927)
Northern Industrial Chemical Co. v. Director General of Railroads
249 Mass. 246 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Wray, Moore & Co. v. American Ry. Ex. Co.
75 Pa. Super. 425 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)
P. Garvan, Inc. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
96 N.E. 717 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
Vuille v. Pennsylvania Railroad
42 Pa. Super. 567 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)
Colbath v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad
74 A. 918 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1909)
Bullock v. Haverhill & Boston Dispatch Co.
72 N.E. 256 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.E. 400, 182 Mass. 290, 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1015, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cote-v-new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-mass-1902.