TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sawyer & Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

SAWYER & CO., Inc. v. The ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO.

Sawyer & Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 282 F. Supp. 791 (D. Mass. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, D. Massachusetts · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 17, 1968
Docket
No. 67-426
Judges
Caffrey
Citations
282 F. Supp. 7911968 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8249

Opinion of the Court — Caffrey

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

OPINION CAFFREY, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The following appears from the pleadings and the affidavits appended to the motion for summary judgment:

1. This action was brought pursuant to the provisions of 49 U.S.C.A. sec. 20 (11) for the recovery by plaintiff of $1,500, the amount of damages it allegedly suffered in the transportation by rail of a quantity of cantaloupes from California to Massachusetts.

2. 49 U.S.C.A. sec. 20 (11) imposes liability only on the initial carrier receiving the property from the consignor or on the final carrier delivering the property to the consignee, and it imposes that liability only in favor of the lawful holder of the bill of lading or receipt for the merchandise.

8. Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain any allegation that it was or is the holder of a bill of lading or a receipt for the merchandise shipped.

4. The receiving carrier who issued the original bill of lading for this merchandise was the Sunset Railway, a line-haul carrier, which is not a switching carrier.

5. The defendant was neither the initial receiving nor the final delivering carrier.

The motion for summary judgment must be allowed because on this record it does not appear that two of the requirements of 49 U.S.C.A. 20(11) have been satisfied, in that plaintiff is not alleged or shown to be the holder of a bill of lading and defendant has affirmatively shown, by uncontradieted affidavits, that it was neither the initial receiving nor the final delivering carrier.

Judgment for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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