John Hood Co. v. American Pneumatic Service Co.

77 N.E. 638, 191 Mass. 27, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1212
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 2, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 77 N.E. 638 (John Hood Co. v. American Pneumatic Service Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Hood Co. v. American Pneumatic Service Co., 77 N.E. 638, 191 Mass. 27, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1212 (Mass. 1906).

Opinion

Lathrop, J.

The rules of law applicable to this case are well settled. A common carrier may limit its liability in case of loss by stipulations concerning the value of the property which it undertakes to convey; but this stipulation must be brought home to the knowledge of the shipper under such circumstances that his assent to it can fairly be assumed to have been given. And if he accepts and acts upon it without dissent he will be presumed to have agreed to it. Graves v. Adams Express Co. 176 Mass. 280, 282, and cases cited. It is possible, but we think not probable, that' the case was decided upon this ground.

A better ground to rest the decision upon is that there was evidence of ratification by the manager of the defendant company of the act of Green, the defendant’s clerk. There was evidence that Green said to the treasurer of the plaintiff [30]*30company, when he called at the office to see about the lost package, and asked to see the manager: “It is unnecessary to see the manager, we are responsible, the receipt amounts to nothing. Go ahead and replace the goods, and if the bill is O. K. we will pay it.” There was also evidence that when the president of the plaintiff company saw later the manager of the defendant company and told him what Green had said, the manager said: “ Never mind now; I will look into it; you present your bill, any way, and if it is as you say, and a just bill, we will pay it.” No question was made at the trial as to the justness of the bill, and the only defence was the limitation of liability in the receipt to $5. Metcalf v. Williams, 144 Mass. 452, and cases cited.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Muelder v. Western Greyhound Lines
8 Cal. App. 3d 319 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Central Storage Warehouse Co. v. Pickering
151 N.E. 39 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1926)
McKinney v. Boston & Maine Railroad
217 Mass. 274 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1914)
Hooker v. Boston & Maine Railroad
95 N.E. 945 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1911)
French v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.
85 N.E. 424 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
McGregor v. Oregon R. & N. Co.
93 P. 465 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 N.E. 638, 191 Mass. 27, 1906 Mass. LEXIS 1212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-hood-co-v-american-pneumatic-service-co-mass-1906.