Marsh L. Brown & Co. v. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Marsh L. Brown & Co. v. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Co.

207 Ill. App. 89, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 550

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJune 27, 1917

DocketGen. No. 22,093

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 207 Ill. App. 89 (Marsh L. Brown & Co. v. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marsh L. Brown & Co. v. Chicago, New York & Boston Refrigerator Co., 207 Ill. App. 89, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 550 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Carriers — when evidence shows no satisfactory explanation of delay in transportation. In an action against a carrier to recover for damages caused by an unreasonable delay in the transportation of freight, evidence held to show no satisfactory explanation for such delay. 4. Carriers — when evidence shows number of articles in shipment. In an action against a carrier to recover for injuries to certain articles of freight in shipment, the contention that the evidence does not show the number of such articles is not tenable, where the number is alleged in plaintiff’s statement of claim and is not denied by defendant and is otherwise shown. 5. Carriers — when contention that claim for loss was not timely made is without merit. In an action against a carrier for injuries to freight, defendant’s contention that plaintiff did not make a claim for loss in writing within four months as required by the bill of lading is not tenable where the making of such claim was not denied in the affidavit of defense and the point was not urged in the trial court. 6. Carriers, § 110* — what is measure of damages for unreasonable delay in shipment of freight. In an action to recover for damages caused by an unreasonable delay in the shipment of freight, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the freight when it should have arrived at its destination and its market value when it did arrive.

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

Mr. Justice Taylor

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Carriers — when evidence shows no satisfactory explanation of delay in transportation. In an action against a carrier to recover for damages caused by an unreasonable delay in the transportation of freight, evidence held to show no satisfactory explanation for such delay. 4. Carriers — when evidence shows number of articles in shipment. In an action against a carrier to recover for injuries to certain articles of freight in shipment, the contention that the evidence does not show the number of such articles is not tenable, where the number is alleged in plaintiff’s statement of claim and is not denied by defendant and is otherwise shown. 5. Carriers — when contention that claim for loss was not timely made is without merit. In an action against a carrier for injuries to freight, defendant’s contention that plaintiff did not make a claim for loss in writing within four months as required by the bill of lading is not tenable where the making of such claim was not denied in the affidavit of defense and the point was not urged in the trial court. 6. Carriers, § 110* — what is measure of damages for unreasonable delay in shipment of freight. In an action to recover for damages caused by an unreasonable delay in the shipment of freight, the measure of damages is the difference between the market value of the freight when it should have arrived at its destination and its market value when it did arrive.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 Ill. App. 89, 1917 Ill. App. LEXIS 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-l-brown-co-v-chicago-new-york-boston-refrigerator-co-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack