Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Harold, No. 347
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | White |
| Citation | 60 L.Ed. 1050,36 S.Ct. 665,241 U.S. 371 |
| Parties | ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. J. R. HAROLD |
| Docket Number | No. 347 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1916 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
90 practice notes
-
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, Case No. 8:11CV8.
...New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 36 S.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed. 1050 (1916); Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314 (1913)). The Carmack Amendment ......
-
York v. Day Transfer Co., C.A. No. 04-551S.
...& Hartford R.R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 131, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 378, 36 S.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed, 1050 (1916). Through the enactment, "Congress intended to adopt a uniform rule and relieve such contracts from th......
-
Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas, 136-N.
...229, 57 L.Ed. 442; So. Covington Ry. v. Covington, 235 U.S. 537, 35 Sup.Ct. 158, 59 L.Ed. 350, L.R.A. 1915F, 792; Atchison Ry. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 36 Sup.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed. 1050. (5) Change of ownership of the property during transit does not necessarily affect the status of the shipmen......
-
Ameriswiss Tech., LLC v. Midway Line of Ill., Inc., Civil No. 11–cv–148–LM.
...& Hartford R.R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 131, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 378, 36 S.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed. 1050 (1916). Through the enactment, “Congress intended to adopt a uniform rule and relieve such contracts from th......
Request a trial to view additional results
90 cases
-
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Beemac Trucking, LLC, Case No. 8:11CV8.
...New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 36 S.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed. 1050 (1916); Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314 (1913)). The Carmack Amendment ......
-
York v. Day Transfer Co., C.A. No. 04-551S.
...& Hartford R.R. Co. v. Nothnagle, 346 U.S. 128, 131, 73 S.Ct. 986, 97 L.Ed. 1500 (1953); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 378, 36 S.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed, 1050 (1916). Through the enactment, "Congress intended to adopt a uniform rule and relieve such contracts from th......
-
Landon v. Public Utilities Commission of State of Kansas, 136-N.
...229, 57 L.Ed. 442; So. Covington Ry. v. Covington, 235 U.S. 537, 35 Sup.Ct. 158, 59 L.Ed. 350, L.R.A. 1915F, 792; Atchison Ry. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 36 Sup.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed. 1050. (5) Change of ownership of the property during transit does not necessarily affect the status of the shipmen......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Northern Oklahoma Rys., No. 7913.
...107, decided Nov. 28, 1927; Penn. R. R. Co. v. Sonman Shaft Coal Co., 242 U. S. 120, 37 S. Ct. 46, 61 L. Ed. 188; A. & T. Ry. v. Harold, 241 U. S. 371, 376, 36 S. Ct. 665, 60 L. Ed. 1050; Penn. R. R. v. Clark Coal Co., 238 U. S. 456, 466, 35 S. Ct. 896, 59 L. Ed. 1406; Ill. Cent. R. R. v. D......
Request a trial to view additional results