Hils Co. v. Louisville & Nash. Rd.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hils Co. v. Louisville & Nash. Rd.

162 N.E. 761, 28 Ohio App. 459, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 320, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 596

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 1928

Docket3112

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 N.E. 761 (Hils Co. v. Louisville & Nash. Rd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hils Co. v. Louisville & Nash. Rd., 162 N.E. 761, 28 Ohio App. 459, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 320, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 596 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

HAMILTON, PJ.

“The liability here turns on the question of delivery. On this question the rule is that .the consignor of goods is primarily liable for the payment of the freight, as the party making the contract. Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Cent. Iron & Coal Co., 265 U. S. 59.

It is also the rule that a consignee cannot accept delivery of an interstate shipment of *321 goods without incurring liability ior the carrier's lawful charges, known or unknown, supposed to be prepaid or otherwise, and no matter what the consignee’s actual relation to the shipper is. Western & Atlantic Ry Co. v. Underwood, 281 Fed. 891.

It has also been held that a consignee is under no obligation to receive or accept a shipment consigned to it where such a consignment was in no way sought or ordered by it or when it is not in accordance with its contract; but when it has exercised an act of dominion over it consistent only with the idea of its acceptance, it will be liable for the freight charges thereon. West Jersey & S. Ry. Co. v. Whiting Lumb. Co., 71 Pa. Superior, 161; Col. & Cinci. Tract. Co. v. N. W. Ry. Co., 8 O. C. C. (N. S.) 134.

Summarized, the facts in the case show that while the Hils Company was not named consignee in the original bill of lading, the company did have possession of the bill of lading, which gave control of the shipment. With the bill in its possession, it exercised dominion over the car, by directing the carrier to divert the shipment to Mt. Vernon, Ind. Upon refusal of acceptance at Mt.« Vernon, the Hils Company ordered the carrier to reeonsigm the shipment to it, at Cincinnati, Ohio, with instructions that all charges were to follow. These facts show the exercise of dominion over the shipment, consistent only with the idea of its acceptance and acknowledgment of liability for the freight charges.”

(Mills & Cushing, JJ., concur.)

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

HAMILTON, PJ.

“The liability here turns on the question of delivery. On this question the rule is that .the consignor of goods is primarily liable for the payment of the freight, as the party making the contract. Louisville & Nashville Rd. Co. v. Cent. Iron & Coal Co., 265 U. S. 59.

It is also the rule that a consignee cannot accept delivery of an interstate shipment of *321 goods without incurring liability ior the carrier's lawful charges, known or unknown, supposed to be prepaid or otherwise, and no matter what the consignee’s actual relation to the shipper is. Western & Atlantic Ry Co. v. Underwood, 281 Fed. 891.

It has also been held that a consignee is under no obligation to receive or accept a shipment consigned to it where such a consignment was in no way sought or ordered by it or when it is not in accordance with its contract; but when it has exercised an act of dominion over it consistent only with the idea of its acceptance, it will be liable for the freight charges thereon. West Jersey & S. Ry. Co. v. Whiting Lumb. Co., 71 Pa. Superior, 161; Col. & Cinci. Tract. Co. v. N. W. Ry. Co., 8 O. C. C. (N. S.) 134.

Summarized, the facts in the case show that while the Hils Company was not named consignee in the original bill of lading, the company did have possession of the bill of lading, which gave control of the shipment. With the bill in its possession, it exercised dominion over the car, by directing the carrier to divert the shipment to Mt. Vernon, Ind. Upon refusal of acceptance at Mt.« Vernon, the Hils Company ordered the carrier to reeonsigm the shipment to it, at Cincinnati, Ohio, with instructions that all charges were to follow. These facts show the exercise of dominion over the shipment, consistent only with the idea of its acceptance and acknowledgment of liability for the freight charges.”

(Mills & Cushing, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 N.E. 761, 28 Ohio App. 459, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 320, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hils-co-v-louisville-nash-rd-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack