Ziegler v. Freeman

Hamilton Circuit Court

Ziegler v. Freeman

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 122, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 264

DecidedMarch 23, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 122 (Ziegler v. Freeman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hamilton Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ziegler v. Freeman, 12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 122, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 264 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

A carrier of parcels for hire who agrees to deliver a telescope bag at a railroad passenger station in time for the owner to take a particular train and gives a claim cheek therefor is required to affix a duplicate check to the baggage and to deliver the same at the baggage-room or other usual place of deposit of baggage at the depot; and in an action to recover for non-delivery, proof by plaintiff that he inquired at the baggage-room of the persons in charge thereof, and at a proper time for his baggage, and was unable to get it, makes a prima facie case which entitles him to recover, unless met with evidence of equal weight; but the burden of proof does not shift from the plaintiff to the defendant.

The court therefore erred in charging the jury that the burden of proving delivery rested upon defendant. Klunk v. Ry., 74 O. S., 135.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

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

A carrier of parcels for hire who agrees to deliver a telescope bag at a railroad passenger station in time for the owner to take a particular train and gives a claim cheek therefor is required to affix a duplicate check to the baggage and to deliver the same at the baggage-room or other usual place of deposit of baggage at the depot; and in an action to recover for non-delivery, proof by plaintiff that he inquired at the baggage-room of the persons in charge thereof, and at a proper time for his baggage, and was unable to get it, makes a prima facie case which entitles him to recover, unless met with evidence of equal weight; but the burden of proof does not shift from the plaintiff to the defendant.

The court therefore erred in charging the jury that the burden of proving delivery rested upon defendant. Klunk v. Ry., 74 O. S., 135.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 122, 1908 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ziegler-v-freeman-ohcircthamilton-1908.