TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Leigh Ellis & Co. v. Davis

LEIGH ELLIS & CO. v. DAVIS, Agent

Leigh Ellis & Co. v. Davis, 276 F. 400 (5th Cir. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 25, 1921
Docket
No. 3755
Judges
Bryan, King, Walker
Citations
276 F. 4001921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2101
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Carriers 160 — Action for short delivery held barred by limitation in bills of lading. An action by the holder of bills of lading for cotton, issued by the Director General of Railroads, for short delivery, held barred by the provision in the bills requiring suits for loss, damage, or delay to be brought within two years and one day after delivery, or, in case of failure to make delivery, within two years and one day after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed.
Summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia; Samuel H. Sibley, Judge. Action at law by Leigh Ellis & Co. against James C. Davis, Federal Agent. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit, brought January 28, 1921, by the holder of two bills of lading issued by the Director General of Railroads on, respectively, March 25, 1918, and March 26, 1918, for cotton shipped, against the Agent designated by the President under the provision of section 206 of the Transportation Act of 1920. .The claim asserted was based on the alleged fact that the cotton delivered weighed greatly less than the weights stated in the bills of lading. For reasons sufficiently stated in the opinion rendered by the District Judge (Leigh Ellis & Co., v. Payne, 274 Fed. 443 ), we are of opinion that the suit was barred by the provision, in the bills of lading sued on, that—

“Suits for loss, damage, or" delay shall be instituted only within two years and one day after delivery of the property, or in case of failure to make delivery then within two years and one day after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed.”

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed; and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1922: 11923: 21925: 11935: 11979: 219222026peak 1923 · 2

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
Ellis v. Payne, 274 F. 443 (N.D. Ga. 1921) 13

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