Pacific Express Co. v. Spaulding & Co.

199 Ill. App. 474
Appellate Court of Illinois·Decided May 29, 1915·No. Gen. No. 21,917·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

199 Ill. App. 474 (Pacific Express Co. v. Spaulding & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nudelman v. Globe Varnish Co.
114 F.2d 916 (Seventh Circuit, 1940)