Furman v. . Union Pacific R.R. Co.

13 N.E. 587, 106 N.Y. 579, 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 192, 61 Sickels 579, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 912
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 4, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by41 cases

This text of 13 N.E. 587 (Furman v. . Union Pacific R.R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Furman v. . Union Pacific R.R. Co., 13 N.E. 587, 106 N.Y. 579, 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 192, 61 Sickels 579, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 912 (N.Y. 1887).

Opinion

Peckham, J.

The following facts were proved or agreed upon on the trial: On the 25th of February, 1880, the assignors of. the plaintiff, being partners, did, at the city of Norfolk, Virginia, deliver to the Baltimore Steam Packet Company, for shipment to Denver, Colorado, 10,460 pounds of peanuts contained in 100 bags and marked “ Y ”, and that company then delivered to plaintiffs a receipt therefor, of which the material part is as follows :

“ The Baltimore Steam Packet Company, R. L. Spoor, General Freight Agent, Baltimore Steam Packet Company.
Norfolk, February 25, 1880
“ Received of Weller & Co. one hundred (100) bags peanuts.
“Weight, 10,460 lbs. Shipper’s weight.
“ Frt. to Denver, Col., $3.14 per 100 lbs., marked T— order notify Zueca Bros, to be transported to Denver, Col., he or they paying freight for the same, etc.”

In the course of transportation to Denver, the peanuts were transported to the Missouri State line, where they were received by the defendant, a duly incorporated railroad company, on the 6th day of March, 1880. It did not receive any bill of lading, or copy thereof, with the peanuts from the preceding carrier, but it received them from a railway corporation known as the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, and for the purpose of transporting said goods over *582 the line of defendant’s railroad to their destination at Denver; at the same time, and, together with the delivery of the goods to the defendant by the Hannibal and St. J oseph Railroad Company, the latter company delivered to the defendant a paper writing, known as a transfer sheet, of which the following is a copy:

Hannibal and St. Joseph Transfer Sheet,
IT’s City, 3/6, 1880.
Consignee “Y,” order Hup, Zueca Bros.,
Denver Col.
8. Ho. 662. From Chic. Date 3/4 W. B. 1,205, car 2,803.
100 bags P’nnts.
Weight. Charges.
All single sacks, good many with holes
in, etc., wasting..-................. 10>460 $63 81
Back charges...................... 82 63
$146 44'
Consignor, Union Line,
Balt.”

A way bill or manifest was made by the agents of defendant at the forwarding station of defendant and sent to the receiving station, either by mail or accompanying the freight; it is usually made up either from the shipping bills furnished by the shipper, when shipments originate at points on the Union Pacific Railway, or from transfer sheets, when freight is received from connecting lines. The way bill made up and relating to this particular matter, together with entries relating to other shipments, is as follows, viz:

*583

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

Related

Kesselman v. Mid-States Freight Lines, Inc.
82 A.2d 881 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1951)
M. & T. Trust Co. v. Export Steamship Corp.
236 A.D. 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Inland Seed Co. v. Washington-Idaho Seed Co.
294 P. 991 (Washington Supreme Court, 1931)
McCoy v. American Express Co.
171 N.E. 749 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Giles v. Newton
21 F.2d 484 (E.D. New York, 1927)
Fox River Butter Co. v. Lightning Motor Line, Inc.
125 Misc. 116 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Bruno v. Phillips & Co.
142 N.E. 21 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1924)
People Ex Rel. Astoria Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Cantor
141 N.E. 901 (New York Court of Appeals, 1923)
Keota Produce Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
189 Iowa 1284 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1920)
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Peters, White & Co.
187 A.D. 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Harris
80 So. 101 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1918)
Lusk v. Lawton Grain Co.
1918 OK 470 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Glanzer v. J. K. Armsby Co.
100 Misc. 476 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1917)
King v. Barbarin
249 F. 303 (Sixth Circuit, 1917)
Mayer v. Southern Pacific Co.
95 Misc. 498 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1916)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Bankers Surety Co.
172 S.W. 266 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1914)
Hassam v. Platt
163 A.D. 366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Hoffman v. New York Railways Co.
84 Misc. 637 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 N.E. 587, 106 N.Y. 579, 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 192, 61 Sickels 579, 1887 N.Y. LEXIS 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/furman-v-union-pacific-rr-co-ny-1887.