W. H. Barber Agency Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

W. H. Barber Agency Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

152 N.W. 1103, 130 Minn. 27, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 504

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 11, 1915

DocketNos. 19,210—(123)

StatusPublished

This text of 152 N.W. 1103 (W. H. Barber Agency Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.) 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

W. H. Barber Agency Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 152 N.W. 1103, 130 Minn. 27, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 504 (Mich. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tbe claim of tbe plaintiff is that in 1908 there was shipped to it at Minneapolis over the defendant railway one carload of oil; that the packages within which the oil was contained were broken and in a leaky condition; that it refused to accept the car, and that the defendant promised it, if it would accept the car and pay the freight, to' pay it for all oil that had leaked from the packages and for the cost of cooperage.

The whole issue was whether such an agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court found that it was not. We cannot say that its finding is not sustained by the evidence.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Tbe claim of tbe plaintiff is that in 1908 there was shipped to it at Minneapolis over the defendant railway one carload of oil; that the packages within which the oil was contained were broken and in a leaky condition; that it refused to accept the car, and that the defendant promised it, if it would accept the car and pay the freight, to' pay it for all oil that had leaked from the packages and for the cost of cooperage.

The whole issue was whether such an agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The court found that it was not. We cannot say that its finding is not sustained by the evidence.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 N.W. 1103, 130 Minn. 27, 1915 Minn. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-h-barber-agency-co-v-northern-pacific-railway-co-minn-1915.