Skinner v. Hall

60 Me. 477
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 Me. 477 (Skinner v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skinner v. Hall, 60 Me. 477 (Me. 1872).

Opinion

Danforth, J.

Unless by special contract, a common carrier is not liable for goods lost beyond the end of his route. Nutting v. Conn. River Railroad Company, 1 Gray, 502; Perkins v. P. S. & P. Railroad Company, 47 Maine, 589 and cases cited.

In this case there was a special contract, evidenced by the receipt given, limiting the defendants’ liability to the end of their own route, and the delivery of the money to a ‘ connecting express company,’ etc. The case shows that their contract was fully performed by the defendants. They have, therefore, discharged all the obligations resting upon them, either by law or by contract. Pendergrast v. Adams Express Co., 101 Mass. 120.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

Appleton, C. J.; Gutting, Walton, and Dickerson, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

AJ Tebbe & Sons Company v. Brown Express
341 S.W.2d 642 (Texas Supreme Court, 1960)
Berg v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad
30 Kan. 561 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1883)
Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.
17 F. Cas. 1131 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Me. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skinner-v-hall-me-1872.