Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad

44 N.E. 131, 166 Mass. 154, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 100
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 22, 1896·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Allen, J.

The defendant made no contract to carry the plaintiff’s freight to Boston and to deliver it there. If the defendant delivered the car with its contents in good order to the connecting carrier in Chicago, it discharged its duty and did all that it undertook to do. The plaintiff conceded that the defendant’s responsibility ended at Chicago, and that it was not liable if the defective icing occurred between Chicago and Boston. See Darling v. Boston Worcester Railroad, 11 Allen, 295. It was therefore incumbent on the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the defendant before the delivery of the car to the connecting carrier in Chicago. It sought to do this by showing that the poultry arrived in Boston in bad condition by reason of defective icing. This, the plaintiff contended, made out a prima facie case. But the court found that the evidence was insufficient to determine which of the connecting carriers was at fault, and ruled that there was no presumption that the injury occurred while the goods were in the hands of the first carrier. This ruling was clearly right, and the finding upon the evidence was certainly well warranted.

Judgment for defendant affirmed.

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

Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad, 44 N.E. 131, 166 Mass. 154, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 100 (Mass. 1896).

44 N.E. 131 (Farmington Mercantile Co. v. Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Emery & Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad
120 N.E. 106 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Diggs
140 P. 1160 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
P. Garvan, Inc. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad
96 N.E. 717 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. McGivney
1907 OK 133 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Moore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
53 N.E. 816 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)