Ford v. American Express Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Ford v. American Express Co.

203 Ill. App. 275, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 205

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 22, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,581

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 Ill. App. 275 (Ford v. American Express Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ford v. American Express Co., 203 Ill. App. 275, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 205 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Carriers, § 4*—when railroad is not common carrier. A railroad company is not a common carrier of the traffic of an express company, hut acts simply as its agent. 2. Carriers, § 82*—what constitutes delivery to consignee by express company. Where a carload of strawberries shipped by an express company as a common carrier was placed by the railroad company on its team tracks at destination which were used by the express company for its deliveries, and the consignee there opened the car, inspected the contents, and receipted and paid the charges for the shipment, held that there was a delivery to the consignee, notwithstanding when he went to unload the next day he found the car had been taken away by some one’s mistake. 3. Carriers, § 96*—when not íiable for delay in delivery. There can be no recovery against a railroad company for failure to perform a contract to deliver goods promptly where no goods are actually received by the company, but are received by an express company whose cars are carried by the railroad company.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Carriers, § 4*—when railroad is not common carrier. A railroad company is not a common carrier of the traffic of an express company, hut acts simply as its agent. 2. Carriers, § 82*—what constitutes delivery to consignee by express company. Where a carload of strawberries shipped by an express company as a common carrier was placed by the railroad company on its team tracks at destination which were used by the express company for its deliveries, and the consignee there opened the car, inspected the contents, and receipted and paid the charges for the shipment, held that there was a delivery to the consignee, notwithstanding when he went to unload the next day he found the car had been taken away by some one’s mistake. 3. Carriers, § 96*—when not íiable for delay in delivery. There can be no recovery against a railroad company for failure to perform a contract to deliver goods promptly where no goods are actually received by the company, but are received by an express company whose cars are carried by the railroad company.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Ill. App. 275, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-american-express-co-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack