Shaw v. Northern Pacific Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Shaw v. Northern Pacific Railroad

41 N.W. 548, 40 Minn. 144, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 41

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 31, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 41 N.W. 548 (Shaw v. Northern Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shaw v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 41 N.W. 548, 40 Minn. 144, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 41 (Mich. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickinson, J.

There was evidence justifying the jury in finding that, when the plaintiff was about to take passage upon a train of [145]*145the defendant at Miles City, he delivered to it, for immediate transportation, his proper personal baggage, for the loss of which the action is brought; but that he then indicated for the convenience of the defendant, and not for his own purposes, that he did not care whether or not it was forwarded by the next train, which was soon to pass that station, as it would be five or six days before he would reach his destination. In other words, there was evidence, proper for the consideration of the jury, that the baggage was delivered to the carrier, and by it received, mérely for transportation in the usual course of business, and not for-storage. The liability of a common carrier, therefore, attached at the time of the delivery. Lawrence v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 15 Minn. 313, (390;) Moses v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, (55 Am. Dec. 222;) Barron v. Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455; Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. 338. The baggage was not sent by the next train, but' was put in the defendant’s baggage-room, where it was destroyed by the burning of the building on the following day.

Order affirmed.

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

Dickinson, J.

There was evidence justifying the jury in finding that, when the plaintiff was about to take passage upon a train of [145]*145the defendant at Miles City, he delivered to it, for immediate transportation, his proper personal baggage, for the loss of which the action is brought; but that he then indicated for the convenience of the defendant, and not for his own purposes, that he did not care whether or not it was forwarded by the next train, which was soon to pass that station, as it would be five or six days before he would reach his destination. In other words, there was evidence, proper for the consideration of the jury, that the baggage was delivered to the carrier, and by it received, mérely for transportation in the usual course of business, and not for-storage. The liability of a common carrier, therefore, attached at the time of the delivery. Lawrence v. Winona & St. Peter R. Co., 15 Minn. 313, (390;) Moses v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 24 N. H. 71, (55 Am. Dec. 222;) Barron v. Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455; Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. St. 338. The baggage was not sent by the next train, but' was put in the defendant’s baggage-room, where it was destroyed by the burning of the building on the following day.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 N.W. 548, 40 Minn. 144, 1889 Minn. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-northern-pacific-railroad-minn-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack