. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. J-. j^ _ .^; : '^bliiPBEAL LAW REPORT8. feasopabiie,' Apngh there was no eridence of record «ti8(aiiiiii|rV th& .view. "iDhe delay, in fact, was atbsolnte- ly necessary, because the goods were shipped to sail by a certain steamer, of a certaib^ line, which was not advertised to sail until afti^^hpse two days had elapscfd. "\,^^ >^ The learned judge then takes up the othe^ condition, as limiting the liability of the company to lossiew-xmits own^ne. This he says is not the literal meani
. The Montreal law reports [microform]. Law reports, digests, etc; Law; Jurisprudence; Droit. J-. j^ _ .^; : '^bliiPBEAL LAW REPORT8. feasopabiie,' Apngh there was no eridence of record «ti8(aiiiiii|rV th& .view. "iDhe delay, in fact, was atbsolnte- ly necessary, because the goods were shipped to sail by a certain steamer, of a certaib^ line, which was not advertised to sail until afti^^hpse two days had elapscfd. "\,^^ >^ The learned judge then takes up the othe^ condition, as limiting the liability of the company to lossiew-xmits own^ne. This he says is not the literal meaning of^g" condition, which construed in iti most favorable sense for the company, would only mean that its responsibility would nof extend to losses on the ship, there being no mention in the bill of lading of other railw;«7s. Such reasoning as this hardly requires a serious Iftnswer.^ The condition does not«ay 4hat the company will not be res- ponsible for losses,on other railway lines, but that its liability will be limited to^its own, and that each carrier will be liable for the losses and damage happening when the goods are in its possession. There, was 90 necessity to mention any other lines in the bill of laidihg. In this case, the company have no power to own, operate or control, roads in the States, and could not possibly carry goods on their ow-n line .to New York. / The learned judge apparently was conscious of the weakness of his position, for he adds another consid^rant, that there is no proof that the plaintiff's attention was called to this clause, but that on the^ contrary there was a presumption that it was not, from the fact that the copy is illegible. The copy is of record, and the appellants refer the Court to it upon this point- It. is however not material, as nothing turns upon «the copy. It is a tissue copy, handed to the shippers, after they, had made and signed the shipping note, and after the original bill of lading had been delivered to them, i
Size: 825px × 3030px
Photo credit: © The Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., books, booksubjectdroit, booksubjectjurisprudence, booksubjectlaw
