H. S. Gile Grocery Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

H. S. Gile Grocery Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

205 Ill. App. 272, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 1096

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedApril 16, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,766

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ill. App. 272 (H. S. Gile Grocery Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway 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

H. S. Gile Grocery Co. v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co., 205 Ill. App. 272, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 1096 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. Cabbiebs, § 81*—when failure of carrier to notify consignee of arrival of shipment at port of embarkation constitutes breach of contract. In an action against a common carrier for failure to deliver a shipment of canned corn in good order, where the shipment was delivered to the defendant as the initial carrier and the car was consigned to a certain party with directions to notify the plaintiff, in care of the steamship company at a certain city, and after arriving at the dock at such city, the car was overlooked and remained on the dock for two months and a half, when notice of its arrival was given to the steamship company, and the cases were then unloaded from the car and remained at the dock for over two weeks, after which the shipment was delivered -to a steamer and ultimately reached the consignee, and during all of this time no notice was given to either the consignor or consignee of the delay in shipment, held that under the bill of lading the defendant was required to notify the plaintiff upon the arrival of the shipment at the port of embarkation, and that leaving the car at such port without notice to either the consignor or consignee for such period constituted a breach of the contract.

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. Cabbiebs, § 81*—when failure of carrier to notify consignee of arrival of shipment at port of embarkation constitutes breach of contract. In an action against a common carrier for failure to deliver a shipment of canned corn in good order, where the shipment was delivered to the defendant as the initial carrier and the car was consigned to a certain party with directions to notify the plaintiff, in care of the steamship company at a certain city, and after arriving at the dock at such city, the car was overlooked and remained on the dock for two months and a half, when notice of its arrival was given to the steamship company, and the cases were then unloaded from the car and remained at the dock for over two weeks, after which the shipment was delivered -to a steamer and ultimately reached the consignee, and during all of this time no notice was given to either the consignor or consignee of the delay in shipment, held that under the bill of lading the defendant was required to notify the plaintiff upon the arrival of the shipment at the port of embarkation, and that leaving the car at such port without notice to either the consignor or consignee for such period constituted a breach of the contract.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ill. App. 272, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-s-gile-grocery-co-v-chicago-northwestern-railway-co-illappct-1917.