CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


WELLS FARGO & CO. EXPRESS V. FORD, 238 U. S. 503 (1915)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 238 U. S. 503 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Wells Fargo & Co. Express v. Ford, 238 U.S. 503 (1915)

Wells Fargo & Company Express v. Ford

No. 259

Submitted May 5, 1915

Decided June 21, 1915

238 U.S. 503

Syllabus

The carrier cannot be held responsible for goods taken from its custody by valid legal process provided it gives the owner prompt notice of the suit so that he may have an opportunity to protect his interest.

As the carrier is not bound to make any defense, it is all the more bound to give the consignor notice so that he may appear and make his own defense.

Where the carrier gives notice of suit and the owner fails to appear or fails in his defense, and the seizure and sale of the property under judicial process amounts to vis major, the carrier cannot be held responsible for yielding thereto.

Where, as in this case, the carrier failed to give reasonable notice to the owner, it cannot plead the judgment obtained against it taking the owner's goods, and in such a case, if the judgment was rendered in another state, the refusal of the court to admit it on the common law ground that notice was not given to the owner does not amount to a denial of full faith and credit under the federal Constitution.

The facts, which involve the liability of carriers for goods taken from them by legal process and also the construction and application of the full faith and credit clause of the federal Constitution, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 238 U. S. 504





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED