TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cote v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad

Louis O. Cote v. New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad Company

Cote v. N.Y., New Haven, & Hartford R.R., 65 N.E. 400 (Mass. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 25, 1902
Judges
Holmes
Citations
65 N.E. 400182 Mass. 2901902 Mass. LEXIS 1015
Headnotes
Carrier. Evidence, Presumption. The presumption that damage to goods was done by the last of several connecting carriers applies to freight as well as to passenger’s baggage.
Summary
Contract or tort against a carrier for damage to goods. Writ in the Third District Court of Bristol, dated May 22,1901. On appeal to the Superior Court the case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts by Braley, J., who made the following finding and ruling: “At the argument of this case upon the agreed facts, the counsel for the defendant asked me to rule, that the claim of the plaintiff being for goods carried as freight, the case of Moore v. New York, New Haven, <f* Hartford Railroad Go. 173 Mass. 335, did not govern, and stated that if I ruled that that case applied to lost goods carried as freight, as well as to lost goods carried as luggage, he had no defence to the action. No other question of fact or law was raised or argued. “ I rule that said case is the law governing this case and that there is no distinction between goods lost when carried as freight and those lost when carried as luggage, and find and order judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $20.80.” The defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action for damage to freight delivered by the plaintiff to the Boston and Maine Railroad at Lawrence to he carried to New Bedford, and delivered by that road to the defendant for the latter to complete the transportation. The freight was in a sealed car, and it does not appear by which road the damage was done. The case was submitted to the Superior Court on agreed facts with power to draw inferences, and that court ordered judgment for the plaintiff. The *291 defendant appealed, rather in the hope that this court might discover some distinction between freight and passenger’s baggage than on any articulate reason for supposing one to exist. We have failed to make the discovery. As was pointed out in Moore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 173 Mass. 335, 337 , the so-called presumption that the harm was done on the last road, although started as a presumption of fact, has been fortified if not maintained on grounds of convenience. These grounds apply equally to freight.

Judgment for plaintiff.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1904: 11909: 11910: 11911: 11921: 11922: 11924: 11927: 11928: 11936: 11954: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Moore v. N.Y., New Haven, & Hartford R.R., 53 N.E. 816 (Mass. 1899) 25

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list