Smith v. Findley
Decision Date | 07 November 1885 |
Citation | 8 P. 871,34 Kan. 316 |
Parties | A. G. SMITH v. DAVID V. FINDLEY |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Error from Ottawa District Court.
IN April, 1880, A. G. Smith was the agent of the Union Pacific Railway Company at Minneapolis, in this state. David V Findley had shipped from Bloomington, Indiana, to Minneapolis, via the Union Pacific Railway, on April 12 1880, a car in which there were two horses and some household goods, and also potatoes, bacon, vinegar, and salt. Upon the arrival of the car at Minneapolis, Findley paid $ 100 freight, $ 65 of which was for back charges, and $ 35 for transportation over the Union Pacific Railway from Kansas City, or state line, to Minneapolis. After the payment of this money to Smith, the agent of the railway company, the latter discovered that the company had transported in the car along with the household goods for Findley, potatoes, bacon, vinegar and salt, and thereupon demanded of Findley $ 11.88 as additional or extra freight, and also held the goods for the same. Findley refused to pay the $ 11.88, and on April 16, 1880, commenced an action against A. G. Smith before a justice of the peace of Ottawa county, to replevy the goods from Smith, for which extra or additional freight was charged. Judgment was rendered in his favor before the justice, and the defendant appealed to the district court. Upon leave of that court, Findley filed the following petition, court and title omitted:
Trial at the May Term, 1884, before the court with a jury. The following is the contract between the plaintiff and the Kansas Pacific Railway Company, (,) which was offered in evidence by plaintiff:
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE STOCK.-- Blood animals, or animals deemed especially valuable, will be carried only on special contract, and agents are not allowed to receive and ship such animals until a proper contract is made between the owner or consignor and the general freight agent. Live stock, not especially valuable, will be rated at first-class rates upon the following estimated weights:
One horse, mule, or horned animal
2,000 lbs.
The following receipt was also offered in evidence by the plaintiff:
The following is the bill made out by the defendant, A. G. Smith, for the freight upon the potatoes, vinegar, salt and bacon shipped by plaintiff to Minneapolis, which freight the plaintiff refused to pay:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cooper's Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Simmons
...the phrase is that which is of a permanent nature, i. e., not consumed in use, which is used by a person for his house. Smith v. Findley, 34 Kan. 316, 8 P. 871 (1885); Marquam v. Sengfelder, 24 Or. 2, 32 P. 676 (1893). Alternatively, household goods are those articles with which a residence......
-
Dixie Fire Ins. Co. v. McAdams
...its contention that the policy covering 'household goods' does not include wearing apparel, appellant cites such cases as Smith v. Findley, 34 Kan. 316, 8 P. 871; In re Kimball's Will, 20 R.I. 619, 40 A. 847; Larsen v. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co., 38 Utah 130, 110 P. 983; In re Patterson's Es......
-
North German Lloyd v. Elting
...to hold that a carrier is entitled to the rate which would have been due, had the shipper truthfully declared his goods. Smith v. Findley, 34 Kan. 316, 8 P. 871; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Trinity County Lumber Co., 1 Tex. Civ.App. 553, 21 S.W. 290; see Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Seitz......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Seitz
...charge the excess of the freight against the goods, and hold the shipment until the additional charges are paid. Smith v. Findley, 34 Kan. 316, 8 Pac. 871;Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad Co. v. Trinity County Lumber Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 553, 21 S. W. 290. The evidence tended to show that......