Pacific Express Co. v. Spaulding & Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Pacific Express Co. v. Spaulding & Co.

199 Ill. App. 474

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 29, 1915

DocketGen. No. 21,917

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 199 Ill. App. 474 (Pacific Express Co. v. Spaulding & 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

Pacific Express Co. v. Spaulding & Co., 199 Ill. App. 474 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Carriers, § 168*—what does not constitute actionable fraud or deceit by consignor. Delivery of shipment to carrier by consignor, without stating the value thereof, though he knows there is a clause in the receipt limiting carrier’s liability to $50 in case a higher value is not given, does not amount to fraud and deceit entitling the carrier to recover damages sustained by recovery of a judgment against it by the consignee for loss of shipment. 5. Judgment, § 502*—when judgment by consignee against carrier for negligence conclusive in action by carrier against consignor. Where a consignee has recovered judgment against a carrier for loss of shipment caused by the latter’s negligence, such carrier cannot recover damages sustained thereby of the consignor based on his fraud and deceit in not stating the true value of the shipment under contract limiting carrier’s liability to a certain amount unless such shipment is valued in excess thereof.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Carriers, § 168*—what does not constitute actionable fraud or deceit by consignor. Delivery of shipment to carrier by consignor, without stating the value thereof, though he knows there is a clause in the receipt limiting carrier’s liability to $50 in case a higher value is not given, does not amount to fraud and deceit entitling the carrier to recover damages sustained by recovery of a judgment against it by the consignee for loss of shipment. 5. Judgment, § 502*—when judgment by consignee against carrier for negligence conclusive in action by carrier against consignor. Where a consignee has recovered judgment against a carrier for loss of shipment caused by the latter’s negligence, such carrier cannot recover damages sustained thereby of the consignor based on his fraud and deceit in not stating the true value of the shipment under contract limiting carrier’s liability to a certain amount unless such shipment is valued in excess thereof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 Ill. App. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pacific-express-co-v-spaulding-co-illappct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack