Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company

New York Court of Appeals

Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company

65 N.E.2d 337, 295 N.Y. 703, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 897

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 65 N.E.2d 337 (Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company) 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

Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company, 65 N.E.2d 337, 295 N.Y. 703, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 897 (N.Y. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Upon this appeal, questions of the application and interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Carmack and Cummins Amendments thereto were presented and necessarily passed upon. The appellants contended: that the respondent’s liability in this cause was governed by the prevailing Michigan Law and not by the Interstate Commerce Act and such amendments and, further, that the attempted limitation of liability of the respondent was invalid and inapplicable under the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, because no choice of rates was afforded to the appellants -and because no opportunity to declare value was accorded to appellants prior to checking.' The court held to the contrary. No opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacheb, Dye and Medalie, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Upon this appeal, questions of the application and interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Carmack and Cummins Amendments thereto were presented and necessarily passed upon. The appellants contended: that the respondent’s liability in this cause was governed by the prevailing Michigan Law and not by the Interstate Commerce Act and such amendments and, further, that the attempted limitation of liability of the respondent was invalid and inapplicable under the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, because no choice of rates was afforded to the appellants -and because no opportunity to declare value was accorded to appellants prior to checking.' The court held to the contrary. No opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacheb, Dye and Medalie, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.E.2d 337, 295 N.Y. 703, 1946 N.Y. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartzberg-v-new-york-central-railroad-company-ny-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack