Campion v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 September 1890
• Citation: 43 F. 775
• Parties: CAMPION v. CANADIAN PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

43 F. 775

CAMPION v. CANADIAN PAC. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois.

September 29, 1890

John S Cooper, for plaintiff.

Walker & Eddy, for defendant.

GRESHAM J.

Having determined to remove from Chicago to Seattle with her family (two daughters,) the plaintiff, on May 14, 1888, visited the office of the defendant to arrange for the shipment of her furniture, books, pictures, clothing, and other household goods. The defendant's agent agreed to receive and forward the goods, and informed the plaintiff that from Chicago to St. Paul they would be carried over the Chicago St. Paul & Kansas City road, thence to Vancouver over the defendant's road, and thence to their destination by the Northern Pacific Navigation Company. The defendant knew that the plaintiff desired to receive and care for her goods when they reached their destination, and that she expected to start on her journey that day. After delivering her property at the freight depot of the Kansas City Company at Chicago and receiving a memorandum receipt for it, the plaintiff went to the defendant's office, showed her receipt, and was informed that an agent of the defendant was at the freight office of the other company, expecting to meet her there. The plaintiff went to the latter office, and met an agent of the defendant in company with an agent of the other company, and was informed by them that her goods would not be forwarded until the freight charges, $105, were paid the regulations of the defendant requiring payment in advance for carrying such property. Having but $75 with her, the plaintiff left, saying she would return in a day or two with money enough to pay the freight bill; but before leaving she handed the receipt to the defendant's agent, who promised to have a bill of lading ready for her. Two days later the plaintiff again called at the defendant's office and informed a clerk or employe, he being the only person present, that she was detained by the illness of one of her daughters, and some business matter, and that her goods would have to remain in the freight house for the present. The employe said he supposed that would be satisfactory, and that he would inform the defendant's freight agent of her situation, which he did. The plaintiff then went to the freight office of the Kansas City Company, and informed its agent of the cause of her detention, who told her that, under the circumstances, her goods could remain where they were without storage charges. The...