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

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
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 : 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

BARRETT V. VAN PELT, 268 U. S. 85 (1925)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 268 U. S. 85 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Barrett v. Van Pelt, 268 U.S. 85 (1925)

Barrett v. Van Pelt

No. 160

Argued January 6, 1925

Decided April 13, 1925

268 U.S. 85


1. The first Cummins Amendment to § 20 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, concerning the duty of carriers to issue receipts or bills of lading for interstate freight and their liability for loss or damage, provides:

"That if the loss, damage, or injury complained of was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery."

Held that the words "carelessness or negligence" qualify the whole clause; "damaged" should be read "damage," and the comma after "unloaded" should be omitted. P. 268 U. S. 87.

2. Thus read, carelessness or negligence is an element of each case of loss, damage, or injury included in the clause, and, in such case, carriers are not permitted to require notice or filing of claim as a condition precedent to recovery. P. 268 U. S. 91.

3. In an action against an express company for damages due to delay, the shipper, not having given notice and filed a claim, as required by the uniform express receipt, must prove the delay was due to the carrier's carelessness or negligence. P. 268 U. S. 91.

205 App.Div. 332 reversed.

Certiorari to a judgment of the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirming a judgment for damages based on delay of an express company in transporting and delivering a carload of eggs. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 268 U. S. 86

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™