Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co v. Martin

Citation143 S.E. 629
Case DateJune 14, 1928
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

143 S.E. 629

CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.
v.
MARTIN et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 14, 1928.


Error to Law and Equity Court, Part 2, of City of Richmond.

Action by H. E. Martin and another against the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Leake & Spicer, of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.

J. F. Hall, of Richmond, for defendants in error.

CAMPBELL, J. This action was brought by Martin and Porter, hereinafter called plaintiffs, against the defendant railway company, to recover damages for an alleged misdelivery of a carload shipment of potatoes. The defendant demurred to the evidence, the court overruled the demurrer, and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, and to that judgment this writ of error was awarded.

The material facts are these: In the fall of 1925, the plaintiffs, who were residents of New Kent and James City counties, respectively, were associated as partners in the sale and purchase of potatoes. They had contracted to purchase 20 cars of potatoes from the Michigan Potato Growers' Exchange, to be delivered at Richmond, Va., subject to the right of inspection at that point. The plaintiffs had no place of business in Richmond, but had arrangements to store the potatoes with the Bowman Transfer & Storage Warehouse. Before the arrival of the potatoes in issue, plaintiffs gave to the defendant a list of the car numbers, and notified it that all potatoes billed to them were to be placed in storage in the Bowman warehouse and to deliver same to the warehouse.

The potatoes in suit were shipped from Wyman, Mich., on November 6, 1925, and arrived at the Fulton yards of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, at Richmond, Va., on November 12, 1925. They were inspected

[143 S.E. 630]

November 16, 1925, by the plaintiffs, who paid the freight and presented an order in their behalf from the consignor.

The car, to reach Bowman's warehouse, had to be switched over the tracks of the Southern Railway. The defendant, having been notified to deliver all potatoes billed to plaintiffs to Bowman's warehouse, gave the Southern Railway orders to deliver the car to Harwood's warehouse, which was several blocks distant from Bowman's. The potatoes were delivered to Harwood's warehouse, and remained there unknown to the plaintiffs until some time in May, 1926, and while there spoiled, presumably from exposure to heat and cold.

Plaintiffs, on May 26, 1926, gave defendant written notice of their claim for damages. From the date of shipment at Wyman, Mich. (November 6, 1925), until the giving of such notice (May 26, 1926), there elapsed 6 months and 20 days.

Section 2 (b) of the uniform bill of lading covering the shipment, which was issued by the Pere Marquette Railroad, at Wyman, Mich., provided as follows:

"(b) Claims for loss, damage, or injury to property must be made in writing to the originating or delivering carrier or carriers issuing this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Zickefoose v. West, No. 12039
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 18, 1960
    ...supra.' In In re Kanawha Valley Bank, W.Va., 109 S.E.2d 649, this Court, citing Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Martin, 154 Va. 1, 143 S.E. 629, 152 S.E. 335, used this language: 'Obiter dicta or strong expressions in an opinion, where such language was not necessary to a decision of......
  • Kanawha Val. Bank, In re, No. 10952
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 28, 1959
    ...was not necessary to a decision of the case, will not establish a [144 W.Va. 383] precedent. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Martin, 154 Va. 1, 143 S.E. 629, 152 S.E. 335. Page 670 Many of the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia are cited in Footnote 15, Page 1......
  • Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin, No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1931
    ...consequently, that the court was obliged to disregard it and overrule the demurrer of the evidence. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. 143 S. E. 629; 152 S. E. 335. The provision of the bill of lading that claim for loss in case of failure to deliver must be made within six months after t......
  • Almond v. Gilmer
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • September 8, 1948
    ...decided fundamentally different, the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Martin and Porter, 154 Va. 1, 143 S.E. 629, 152 S.E. 335; Morison v. Dominion National Bank Etc., 172 Va. 293, 1 S.E.2d 292; Home Brewing Co. v. Richmond, 181 Va. 793, 27 S.E.2d 188. Sin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State ex rel. Zickefoose v. West, No. 12039
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • October 18, 1960
    ...supra.' In In re Kanawha Valley Bank, W.Va., 109 S.E.2d 649, this Court, citing Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. Martin, 154 Va. 1, 143 S.E. 629, 152 S.E. 335, used this language: 'Obiter dicta or strong expressions in an opinion, where such language was not necessary to a decision of......
  • Kanawha Val. Bank, In re, No. 10952
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 28, 1959
    ...was not necessary to a decision of the case, will not establish a [144 W.Va. 383] precedent. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Martin, 154 Va. 1, 143 S.E. 629, 152 S.E. 335. Page 670 Many of the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia are cited in Footnote 15, Page 1......
  • Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin, No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 13, 1931
    ...consequently, that the court was obliged to disregard it and overrule the demurrer of the evidence. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. 143 S. E. 629; 152 S. E. 335. The provision of the bill of lading that claim for loss in case of failure to deliver must be made within six months after t......
  • Almond v. Gilmer
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • September 8, 1948
    ...decided fundamentally different, the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Martin and Porter, 154 Va. 1, 143 S.E. 629, 152 S.E. 335; Morison v. Dominion National Bank Etc., 172 Va. 293, 1 S.E.2d 292; Home Brewing Co. v. Richmond, 181 Va. 793, 27 S.E.2d 188. Sin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT