J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. American Exp. Co., Inc

Second Circuit

J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. American Exp. Co., Inc

201 F.2d 846

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 9, 1953

Docket151, Docket 22549

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 201 F.2d 846 (J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. American Exp. Co., Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. American Exp. Co., Inc, 201 F.2d 846 (2d Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The principal question presented by the appeal is whether the Express Company acted only as a forwarding agent dr assumed the liabilities of a common carrier. There would be no occasion to add to Judge Goddard’s able and thorough opinion, 102 F.Supp. 742, except for the fact that his opinion makes no reference to the case so strongly urged as controlling upon the appeal, namely, Reid v. Fargo, 241 U.S. 544, 36 S.Ct. 712, 60 L.Ed. 1156. That opinion, although “the considerations which control our conclusion” are somewhat enigmatically expressed, 241 U.S. at page 551, 36 S.Ct. at page 715, appears to have held the Express Company secondarily liable because it accepted a bill of lading limiting the ocean carrier’s liability. In the case at bar the course of dealings between the parties makes it perfectly plain that the Express Company was not expected nor authorized to secure a value bill of lading from the American Export Lines. Indeed, at the opening of the trial the proctor for the libellant expressly withdrew the claim that a value bill of lading should have been obtained, which probably accounts for Judge Goddard’s making no reference to Reid v. Fargo.

Decree affirmed on opinion below.

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

PER CURIAM.

The principal question presented by the appeal is whether the Express Company acted only as a forwarding agent dr assumed the liabilities of a common carrier. There would be no occasion to add to Judge Goddard’s able and thorough opinion, 102 F.Supp. 742, except for the fact that his opinion makes no reference to the case so strongly urged as controlling upon the appeal, namely, Reid v. Fargo, 241 U.S. 544, 36 S.Ct. 712, 60 L.Ed. 1156. That opinion, although “the considerations which control our conclusion” are somewhat enigmatically expressed, 241 U.S. at page 551, 36 S.Ct. at page 715, appears to have held the Express Company secondarily liable because it accepted a bill of lading limiting the ocean carrier’s liability. In the case at bar the course of dealings between the parties makes it perfectly plain that the Express Company was not expected nor authorized to secure a value bill of lading from the American Export Lines. Indeed, at the opening of the trial the proctor for the libellant expressly withdrew the claim that a value bill of lading should have been obtained, which probably accounts for Judge Goddard’s making no reference to Reid v. Fargo.

Decree affirmed on opinion below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 F.2d 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-c-penney-co-inc-v-american-exp-co-inc-ca2-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack