Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad

Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad

34 N.W. 269, 67 Mich. 110, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 777
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 6, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 269 (Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rickerson Roller Mill Co. v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad, 34 N.W. 269, 67 Mich. 110, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 777 (Mich. 1887).

Opinion

Sherwood, J.

The plaintiff in this case sues to recover the value of goods shipped over the defendant’s road to Joplin, in the state of Missouri.

The plaintiff’s right of action is based on the claim that the defendant failed to comply with the contract of shipment, and delivered the goods in question without the production of the bill of lading, whereby the plaintiff was dam[111]*111aged in the sum of $2,099.95. The trial of the cause was had in the superior court of Grand Eapids before a jury, and a verdict was directed for the defendant.

The essential facts to a correct understanding of the case, hot disputed, are as follows:

The defendant’s road extends from Grand Eapids to Eiehmond, in Indiana, and the plaintiff at the time the shipment was made was doing business under the name of O. E. Brown Manufacturing Company, and subsequently its name was ■duly changed to Eickerson Eoller Mill Company, and it does business in the city of Grand Eapids.

The plaintiff sold its mills in various sections of the country. For two years the plaintiff had sold mills to J. Halteman & Co., of St. Louis, Missouri. J. B. Seargeant, of Joplin, made a contract with Halteman & Co. for the purchase of a set of the plaintiff’s mills, and Halteman & Co. ordered a set from the plaintiff at Grand Eapids, and directed that they should be shipped direct to Seargeant, at Joplin. The plaintiff accepted the order, and delivered the mills to the defendant for shipment, and gave the fpllowing order therefor: '♦

“Grand Eapids, Mich., May 30, 1884.
“Delivered to the G. E. & I. Eailroad,
“By the O. E. .Brown Manufacturing Comp’y,
“ the following property, in apparent good order (except as noted), marked and assigned as in the margin, which they agree to deliver with as reasonable dispatch as their general business will permit, subject to the conditions mentioned below, in like good order (the dangers incident to railroad transportation, loss or damage by fire while at depots or stations, loss or damage of combustible articles by fire while in transit, and unavoidable accidents excepted), at-station, upon the payment of charges.
“ The company further agree to forward the property to the place of destination as per margin, but are not to be held liable on account thereof, after the same shall be delivered as above. The company, however, guarantee the through rate of freight as designated below.
[112]*112“ CONDITIONS.
“!®”The company do not agree to carry the property by any particular train, nor in time for any particular market.
“ Oils, and all other liquids, whether carried in packages or tanks furnished by shippers, or by the company, to be at owner’s risk of leakage.
“ Liquids in glass or earthen, drugs and medicines in boxes, glass and glassware in boxes, looking-glasses, marble, stoves, stove-plates, and light castings, earthen or queensware, at owner’s risk of breakage.
“ Agricultural implements, cabinet-ware, and furniture not boxed, carriages, at owner’s risk of breakage or damage by chafing,
“ Oysters, poultry, dressed hogs, fresh meats, and provisions of all kinds, trees, shrubbery, fruit, and all perishable property, at owner’s risk of frost or decay.
“1S3F" It is apart of this agreement that all other carriers transporting the property herein receipted for as a part of the through line shall be entitled to the benefit of all the exceptions and conditions above mentioned, and, if a carrier by water, he is to be entitled to the further benefit of exception from loss or damage arising from collision, and all other dangers incident to lake and river navigation.
Grindstones and wooden bowls entirely at owner’s risk of breakage or chipping.
‘•frgp And all other conditions of the said railroad company.

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

Related

Sturges v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.
131 N.W. 706 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
L. Starks Co. v. Manistee & Northeastern Railroad
131 N.W. 99 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Wolf v. Grand Rapids, Holland & Chicago Railway
112 N.W. 732 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Pennsylvania Co. v. Dickson
67 N.E. 538 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1903)
Taffe v. Oregon Railroad
67 P. 1015 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1902)
Smith v. American Express Co.
66 N.W. 479 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1896)
Black v. Walter
44 N.W. 1120 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.W. 269, 67 Mich. 110, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickerson-roller-mill-co-v-grand-rapids-indiana-railroad-mich-1887.