Thomas Canning Co. v. S. Pac. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 62.,62. |
| Citation | 223 Mich. 154,193 N.W. 793 |
| Parties | THOMAS CANNING CO. v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Kent County; Major L. Dunham, Judge.
Action by the Thomas Canning Company against the Southern Pacific Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, CLARK BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Colin P. Campbell, of Grand Rapids, for appellant.
Oscar E. Waer, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
This case has been here before and is reported in 219 Mich. 214,189 N. W. 210, where a full statement of the facts and issues will be found.
The action is to recover damages to three cars of dry beans shipped to plaintiff from points in California and originating on defendant's lines.
The case has been retried in the circuit, and the only new evidence was a showing that the beans were delivered to the carrier in good condition, and therefore the damage to the beans in one car was occasioned by the negligence of defendant in shipping them in an oil-soaked car. The circuit judge followed our opinion, and directed a verdict for defendant. The case presents the same legal questions as when here before, supplemented by the claim that where loss happens through negligence of the carrier, limitation of time within which to bring suit, as determined in our former opinion, does not apply.
The reargument of the question is most ingenious but induces no thought of error in our former decision. Our attention is called to Taylor Co. v. C., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (Ky.) reported in the advance sheets of 245 Southwestern Reporter at page 895, but for some reason not included in the bound volume, 1 and we are asked to abandon our decision and accept the views expressed by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
Since our decision the pivotal questions involved have come before the Court of Appeals of Maryland in Acme-Evans Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 121 Atl. 571, decided January 13, 1923, but not yet (officially) reported, and our opinion is there quoted with approval, and the Kentucky opinion considered.
This loss through claimed negligence falls within the clause ‘suits for loss, damage or delay,’ and the limitation mentioned in our former opinion applies thereto. Ellis & Co. v. Davis, 43 Sup. Ct. 243, 67 L. Ed. 460 (February 15, 1923).
Plaintiff urges us to excuse it from the limitation of time in which suit should have been brought, because defendant had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rockwell v. Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co.
...nor the carrier can deviate from them without discrimination, which is the important thing inhibited.’ Thomas Canning Company v. Southern Pacific Co., 219 Mich. 388, 189 N. W. 210, 213;Id., 223 Mich. 154, 193 N. W. 793. ‘In an action for damages to horses shipped by express from one State t......
-
Watson-Higgins Milling Co. v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co., WATSON-HIGGINS
...the carrier can deviate from them without discrimination which is the important thing inhibited.' Thomas Canning Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 219 Mich. 388, , 189 N.W. 210, 231; 223 Mich. 154.' Rockwell v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., 264 Mich. 626, 250 N.W. 515, 'We have repeatedly held th......
- Simpson v. Simpson