BOSWORTH
v.
CARR, RYDER & ENGLER COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Bosworth shipped manufactured doors, sash, blinds, and moldings from Iowa to Alabama via a railroad car that was received by the Peoria Company and deposited in a yard at East St. Louis, where it was destroyed by fire on October 28, 1894. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' judgment holding the Peoria Company liable, reasoning that although the Terminal Association had physical possession of the car under an agreement with the receiver, it had not become responsible as a carrier because it lacked a waybill or other documentation necessary to proceed with carriage of the goods.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
The claim presented on this record was for the value of a quantity of. manufactured doors,'sash, blinds and moldings, shipped from Dubuque, Iowa, on October 20, 1894, and consigned to the May & Thomas Hardware Companjq Birmingham, Alabama, by way of East St. Louis. The car containing the merchandise in question was received by the Peoria Company from the connecting earner, and, at about three o’clock on the afternoon of October 28, 1894, was deposited in its portion of the yard of the Terminal Association at East St. Louis set apart for the use of the Peoria Company, under the agreement referred to in the opinion just delivered in Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, No. 12 of this term. On the night of the date last mentioned the car and contents were destroyed by the same fire which consumed or damaged the property of the I-luntting Elevator Company. Both of the courts below decreed the liability of the Peoria Company, the Court of Appeals declaring that “ though in the physical possession, under its agreement with the receiver, of the car in which the goods were being transported, the Terminal Association had not become responsible as a carrier therefor, because it had not been put in possession of a way bill or other form of information on which it could proceed with the carriage.” It necessarily results from the views expressed by us in the Hantting Elevator Company case that the courts below did not err in the decrees rendered by them upon this claim.
The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming that of the Circuit Court, is accordingly
Affirmed.