Libby v. Ingalls

124 Mass. 503, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 364
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJune 28, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 124 Mass. 503 (Libby v. Ingalls) 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
Libby v. Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 364 (Mass. 1878).

Opinion

Soule, J.

The receipts of the Red Line Transit Company were the only evidences of contract or of title which the plaintiffs took from the carrier. These receipts named the plaintiffs as consignors and consignees. The freight bills delivered by the Boston and Albany Railroad Company to the defendants instructed them, in accordance with the contract shown by the receipts, to deliver the goods to the order of the plaintiffs. Till the defendants could deliver them to the plaintiffs, or some one showing authority from the plaintiffs to receive them, it was their duty to retain them and take all reasonable care of them. If they gave them up to any one not entitled to them, they became liable to the owners for their value. National Bank of Green Bay v. Dearborn, 115 Mass. 219. It is wholly immaterial, therefore, that they received a part of the goods before receiving the receipts and attached drafts for the price. The receipts with the attached drafts were plain instructions, when received, that the receipts, which were the evidence of title to the goods, were to be delrrered only on payment of the drafts. Newcomb v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 115 Mass. 230. Till they were received, and C. H. Lowell & Co. had bought the goods by paying the drafts, the defendants were not authorized to deliver the goods to any one. Alderman v. Eastern Railroad, 115 Mass. 233.

The defendants gave no heed to the instructions contained in the freight bills, but governed themselves entirely by the marks on the goods. The delivery to C. H. Lowell & Co. without au« [506]*506thority was a conversion of the goods, and the defendants are liable to the plaintiffs for the value of the whole..

Judgment for the plaintiffs affirmed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Shea
82 N.E.2d 511 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Aylor
150 S.E. 252 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1929)
Alex Woldert Co. v. Jos. Samuel Co.
1 La. App. 251 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1924)
Rooney v. McLeod
137 N.E. 266 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1922)
Southern Express Co. v. Smith
122 N.E. 427 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1919)
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. W. H. McIntyre Co.
108 N.E. 978 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1915)
Mills v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad
214 Mass. 383 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Allen
1912 OK 67 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Wright & Colton Wire Cloth Co. v. Warren
58 N.E. 1082 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1901)
Union Stock Yards Co. v. Westcott
66 N.W. 419 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
North v. Merchants & Miners' Transportation Co.
15 N.E. 779 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 Mass. 503, 1878 Mass. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/libby-v-ingalls-mass-1878.