124 Misc. 359

H. R. Mallison & Co., Respondent, v. William M. Barrett, as President of the Adams Express Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 8, 1925.

*360Stockton & Stockton [George M. Billings of counsel], for the' appellant.

Theodore L. Bailey [Cr. E. Smith of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The Second Cummins Amendment (39 U. S. Stat. at Large, 441, 442, chap. 301), referred to in points of counsel, did not affect the right of a carrier to have a partial loss prorated in accordance with the terms of its contract with the shipper limiting its liability upon the basis of the declared value of the property.

However, in this case there was no stated ratio, the value being stated in a lump sum. We are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full value of the lost property. (Candee v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 94 N. J. Law, 144; 109 Atl. 202; petition for writ of certiorari denied, 253 U. S. 490.)

Judgment affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.

All concur; present, Gut, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

H. R. Mallison & Co. v. Barrett
124 Misc. 359

Case Details

Name
H. R. Mallison & Co. v. Barrett
Decision Date
Jan 8, 1925
Citations

124 Misc. 359

Jurisdiction
New York

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!