• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/444.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    BOSWORTH v. CARR, RYDER & ENGLER CO., 179 U.S. 444 (1900)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    BOSWORTH v. CARR, RYDER & ENGLER CO., 179 U.S. 444 (1900)

    179 U.S. 444

    C.H. BOSWORTH, Receiver of the Chicago, Peoria, & St. Louis Railway Company, Petitioner,
    v.
    CARR, RYDER, & ENGLER COMPANY.
    No. 14.

    Argued October 24, 25, 1899.
    Decided December 17, 1900.

    Messrs. Bluford Wilson and Philip Barton Warren for petitioner.

    Messrs. Burton Hanson, George R. Peck, and George P. Cary for respondent.

    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 Company, Birmingham, Alabama, by way of East St. Louis. The car containing [179 U.S. 444, 445]   the merchandise in question was received by the Peoria Company from the connecting carrier, 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 Co. v. Bosworth, number 12 of this term, ante, 183. 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 Huntting Elevator Company. Both of the courts below decreed the liability of the Peoria Company, the court of appeals declaring that 'though in 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 Huntting 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.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw