L. Frank & Co. v. Southern Express Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

L. Frank & Co. v. Southern Express Co.

3 Pelt. 351

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 1, 1920

DocketNo. 7729

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pelt. 351 (L. Frank & Co. v. Southern Express Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

L. Frank & Co. v. Southern Express Co., 3 Pelt. 351 (La. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Statement of Facts.

L. Frank & Co., a commercial co-partnership, doing busi-ness and domiciled in the City of Hew Orleans^, sue the defendant companies for the sum of $96.50, claiming that the Sourthern Express Co., a common carrier, did, on 13th. June, 1918, reoeive a shipment of ohiokens, shipped by H.

L. Hodge, of Finge? Tenn. That the shipment in question consisted of twenty-one coops of ohiokens, and the said ohiokens were shipped by Hodge at the place Stated to do delivered to plaintiff in this City, and when said ohiokens were shipped that the same were in healthy and good oondii--ion, but that when delivered in due course they were all dead. Claiming further that said property was not properly handled by defendants and not delivered in proper condition. That they were* responsible for said chickens for the full value of the amount olaimed together with $6.83, oost of transportation paid by plaintiff and they pray for judgment accordingly.

Defendant, the Sourthern.Express Co., deny generally all the allegations of plaintiffs petition, but admit that it received the shipment referred to, but denies chat the [352]*352cnicjnonc ca.*.. liv '¿..oir -.ath tbrvuwü -.ay ra-lt of avión^rwj that, f nr tier they did not Inc.; 1.- c^nai'oion of tne enid— — OaiC j.j — "3- ->w 0.3 i.- — O- Ij. Of j_-.il CiilohCUS *iaS aUC tC./ v*. .. 1j dx-dt , cj.j"<vi -a ..j.^ 0j.»J-CO *■’«i* wi ¿ CVv* OrO'^aCO m 3.1*2 cuoys i.i /hich t.*» -.-re 3hi_.¿^- oy oo..3r_nor¿.

Ti:; facts i." - .is c-.sc -re ¿11 ir* favor of ¿intií f. Ib \;as teuti'Sf 1* the oni^yor — - chi-ct jn¿ were ^--.it in coups .v.o nad al./uys ocen u.uúw, 0. ..’it.iC-¿n-a had boon a shi^ or oí sifl.ili'ir arló cien for t iu _v-..t six yogi’s and *ol ey /.ere e.11 u)c,cU 5 u ¿jro/vi’ aba ¿ju<«1 banner; that ti -.re ñora only from lo to ¿0 ncaá to o:-, olí coop, all in ¿ood condition, ana shipment; •»;__} .i-uo cas .. v/ -¡.nú tac ijlivcry ¿noi 11 h-vr. boon male ni ti ir. toanty-focr borra bloro aftc.r íSm ¡it.ioat losa of -ay nd if ¿.ro^orly Caia,d forr The witnesses in this oase in behalf of plaintiff, Mr. Hookstein sweats positively that the ohiokena were all dead. ’ r. Alo-vorish corroborate^ t.iis fact anu ¿.ivc» it c.s his opinion, dft^r r.ar.y years of ax.^ or i snee in handling frcia.it of this chariotsr, tne-t tno chickens ’.vci'o si :oth:-.roa to death onroutc ai.d did not receive ¿.ro^-r oa*ra.

fhe fcsütif'.ony of ctu-fonáaát¿ j.o -11 to tbs effect, negative in o.a-raeter, ..nd I —m ounvincou. th-fc tac chickens did nut receive th- Ou,re tduy snould h-vo received by the dsf endaat co_ a nv,

The authorities are almost univoroal that c^rri«*y i..asS u-tisfy ana diseñaras the obligations in_.cb.5d urwa fchuia, *.nd unless they can ^revo that the los* cr had seen aunc by accident or anc-nitrolable events t.icvy cannot be released xrOit ouch chli-ation. Civil Code, Art. ¿?£-x. Lch...-nn, "tern ? Pc. . ? 1. 1 . 3 Ó. G. Co. ha. 115, 1. and tne w:t..ur¡ Si jo z i írc oit«a«

Ía.í- Court in 7 Court of ...Xau : 'wClfiO ■ . V. , icw daci-n. a virfccu.ll-18, Truxillo v-j. tw fc.i5 9U.lv CÍ’f..wt. nlsU, Y*. Z. C. V.. . li. Court of Cell, [353]*353jj. 316, and in the 14 Co'fcart' 9f Appeal,' p. 5?t^, where there was a special defense set up the Court hold».* in claiming special defenses on general principles, to Bimiliar effect.

It is admitted, that the Southern Express Co. has transfer* -red all its assets to the American Railway Express Co., and therefore, in our opinion , both defendants are responsible to plaintiff in this case.

For the reasons herein assigned, the judgment of the First City Court is affirmed with cots of both courts.

Judgment Affirmed.

[354]

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