Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

When carrier is not estopped to defend against a bill of lading held as security for money advanced.

L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Nat'l Live Stock Co., 178 Ill. 506. Fact that stock are unloaded and fed and watered, en route, while being transferred from carrier to carrier, is immaterial.

Lewis, Receiver, v. Springville Banking Co., 166 III. 311. Whether a railroad company is giving one shipper a better rate than another is a question of fact only prima facie shown by a lower charge.

Savitz v. 0. & M. R. R. Co., 150 Ill. 208.

[ocr errors]

Delivery of goods.

Delivery of goods to carrier held constructive delivery to consignee, and title vests in consignee subject to stoppage in transitu.

L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Nat'l Live Stock Co., 178 III, 506. Delivery of bill of lading is constructive delivery of the property named therein—when given to a bank as securityendorsement not required.

Lewis, Receiver, v. Springville Banking Co., 166 Ill. 311. Carrier's common law liability for delivery at destination can be limited only by express agreement assented to—stipulations in receipt or bill of lading void unless assented to by shipper.

C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Simon, 160 Ill. 648 (652).

C. & A. R. R. Co. v Davis, 159 I11. 53 (59). Carrier's liability ends on delivery of goods to consignee, where no other ownership appears-presentation of bill of lading protects carrier.

Commercial Bank v. C. St. P. & K. C. Ry. Co., 160 Ill. 401 (407). Carriers cannot limit liability by written conditions not assented to in bill of lading or receipt.

Merchants' Despatch Co. v. Furthman, 149 Ill. 66. Carrier's liability for freight ends on delivery of same at a warehouse at point of destination-rule as to.

Gregg v. I. C. R. R. Co., 147 III. 550 (555).

Carrier is liable for injury to goods in transit, in absence of limiting agreement.

E. J. & E. Ry, Co. v. Bates Mch. Co., 200 III. 636. How far a carrier may limit his liability to a shipper for negligence—not for gross negligence.

C. & N. W Ry. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm, 194 Ill. 9. Carriers are liable to shippers for stock lost by disease caused by germs in the cars-duty to furnish healthy cars.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Harris, 184 III. 57. Carrier's liability ends upon safe delivery to depot or warehouse-misdelivery by agent of receiving line.

1. C. R. R. Co. v. Carter, 165 Ill. 570 (579). Common carrier may, by agreement with shipper, limit time within which damages shall be claimed.

Baxter v. L. N. A. & C. Ry. Co., 165 Ill. 78. An unusual flood is an act of God-carrier not liable for loss of baggage, unless its negligence contributed to the losing.

Wald v. P. C. C. & St. L. R. R. Co., 182 Ill. 545 (550).

Notice by, to shipper.

Carriers by rail are not required to notify consignee of arrival of goods—liability after arrival.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Carter, 165 Ill. 570 (575). Carriers by water held required to notify consignee of arrival of goods, but may be waived.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Carter, 165 III 570 (577). Carrier is not required to notify a shipper that the carrier's consignee has failed to remove goods at destination after notice from carrier.

Gregg v. I. C. R. R. Co., 147 Ill. 550 (557).

“Through freight”-or tickets-Rule as to.

One carrier acting as agent for another carrier is liable for

the negligence of its servants in doing the work of such agency, and for their misfeasance.

III. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Foulks, 192 Ill. 57. Connecting carriers carrying through freight, each in turn becomes the agent of the owner, as each receives the freight, to carry it safely and deliver it to the next carrier.

Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Foulks, 192 Ill. 57. A carrier receiving goods to be delivered at a point beyond its line is liable over the entire distance, connecting carriers being its agents bill of lading immaterial.

St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. v. Elgin Milk Co., 175 III. 557. Carriers agree to carry goods to destination to which they are marked, in absence of other specific agreement.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Carter, 165 Ill. 570 (574). Carriers selling through tickets are not partners though dividing profits of tickets; agents only.

C. & A. R. R. Co v. Mulford, 162 Ill. 522 (532). Receiving goods for delivery to a point beyond line of receiving railroad, is prima facie a contract to carry the goods to the point named.

C. N. W. Ry. Co. v. Simon, 160 Ill. 648 (651). Where a shipper has customarily furnished cars under contracts for coal “f. o. b cars," it cannot afterward claim it was not bound to furnish cars.

Harman et al. v. Washington Fuel Co., 228 Ill. 298. The burden of proof is on a carrier to show that a shipper assented to the terms and conditions of shipment in the bill of lading

Wabash R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 222 Ill. 337 (345). Delivering grain transported in carload lots at the usual place for unloading upon a side track of the railroad with notice to consignee, releases the company from further liability, where no special place is named in the contract, or necessary for the care of the grain.

Gratio St. Warehouse Co. v. St. L. A. & T. H. Ry. Co., 221 I11. 418.

Where Railroad Company.accepts goods for transportation at unlawful rates, it cannot hold the goods at destination for the regular rates. The rule permitting the raising of rates after shipment does not apply in such a case.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 Ill. 350 (356). When a shipper may re-classify and increase rates for goods, after shipment.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 Ill. 350 (356). Trover lies for conversion of goods held for higher rates by a Railroad Company when it unlawfully reduced rates at time of shipment.

I. C. R. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 Ill. 350 (356).

Lien of.

Lien of carrier for charges ends upon delivery of the goods to the consignee. Storage in carrier's name does not waive such lien.

Gregg v. I. C. R. R. Co., 147 Ill. 550 (562). Lien of carriers for demurrage will not be allowed unless consented to by the shipper before shipment.

C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 588. Carriers have a lien on freight for demurrage or car service. Rules as to.

Purcell v. P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 2 Ill. C. C. R. 378.

Contracts of.

Contracts for carrying freight through several States are interpreted by the laws of the State in which the contract was made.

Coats v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 239 I11. 154. To furnish coal as needed.

McLean Coal Co. v. Bloomington, 234 Ill. 90. Under Interstate Commerce Act.

Kirby v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 242 Ill. 418.

Waybill—when a part of the contract.

Kirby v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 242 Ill. 418.

Rights and powers of.

As bailee.

P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 242 Ill. 178. Actions by to recover goods destroyed by mob.

P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 242 Ill. 178.

Goods in transit.

When status is lost.

People v Bacon, 243 Ill. 313.

Who are.

Question of fact.

Bare v. American Forwarding Co., 242 Ill. 298. Company operating scenic railways is.

O’Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 242 III. 336. Sleeping car company operating their own cars are common carriers and must treat all patrons alike.

Nevin v. Pullman Car Co., 106 Ill. 222. Teamsters doing hauling under time contracts at fixed prices for certain customers are not common carriers.

City of Chicago v. Forbes Cartage Co., 1 Ill. C. C. R. 473. City Express Companies held to be common carriers and must deal with all on same terms.

Field v. Becklenberg, 1 Ill. C. C. R. 59 (62). Refusal of a common carrier (City Ex. Co.) to carry goods offered is not excused by fact another carrier was available.

Field v. Becklenberg, 1 III. C. C. R. 59. Common carriers liability as to freight ceases when same has been delivered upon the private side track of consignee.

Purcell v. P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 2 Ill. C. C. R. 378.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »