Case ID: wis_112/html/0168-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marshall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ullman, Respondent, vs. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Appellant.
    
      October 19
    
    
      November 29, 1901.
    
    
      Ullman v. C. & N. W. R. Co., ante, p. 150, followed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Oconto county: S. D. Hastings, Je., Circuit Judge.
    
      Modified cmd affirmed.
    
    Action to recover, on the ground of negligence, for a horse, so injured that he died, and for injuries to other horses owned by plaintiff, while they were in the possession of defendant as a common carrier. The jury found the issues of fact in plaintiff’s favor, entitling him to recover, and assessed the value of the horse that died at $200 and the damages to the other horses at $60. The horses were shipped over defendant’s railroad under a contract identical with the one considered in Ullman v. 0. (&■ W. W. B. Go., ante, p. 150. The court rendered judgment upon the verdict for $260 and interest. Defendant’s counsel excepted to the ruling of the court in that regard, upon the ground, among others, that plaintiff’s recovery should be limited, as to the horse that died, to $100 under the terms of the shipping contract.
    
      Edward M. Hyzer, for the appellant.
    For the respondent there was a brief by Classon & Brazeau, and oral argument by D. & Classon.
    
   Marshall, J.

The question raised on this appeal is the same as that decided in Ullman v. C. & N. W. R. Co. mentioned in the statement, that is, Was plaintiff’s right to recover damages for the horse that died from his injuries limited, by a valid contract under which the horses were shipped, to $100, notwithstanding the death of the horse was caused by the carrier’s negligence ? That must be answered in the affirmative for reasons stated in the preceding case. The judgment must be modified by reducing it to the sum of $160, with simple interest thereon from the time the loss occurred, December 6, 1899, and costs as taxed, and affirmed as modified, costs in this court to go in favor of the appellant. '

By the Court.— So ordered.