Case ID: ohio-law-abs_4/html/0190-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 241
    PENNA. R. R. CO. v. AULT WOOD. CO.
    Ohio Appeals, 1st Dist., Hamilton Co.
    No. 2689.
    Decided Nov. 16, 1925
    209. CARRIERS — When consignor and carrier agree upon terms of damages when consignment is reshipped due to negligence of company, and later such shipment is resold by consignor, company cannot dispute such action and is liable to consignor under the agreement.
    Attorneys — Maxwell & Ramsey for Rd. Co.; Moulinier, Bettman & Hunt, for Ault Co.; all of Cincinnati.
   PER CURIAM.

The Ault Woodenware Co., located in Pennsylvania, consigned a shipment of matches to Louisville, Ky. on June 30, 1922. The shipment was not delivered until Sept. 13, 1922 when the consignee refused to accept same on account of delay.

The Woodenware Co. instituted this action in the Cincinnati Municipal Court against the Railroad Co. for loss resulting from return of goods from Cincinnati.

It seems that when the Woodenware Co. was advised that the consignee refused the shipment, it expressed its willingness to authorize reshipment to Cincinnati provided the Railroad Co. would allow the profit lost on the shipment, plus the difference between freight rates. The goods were reshipped upon these conditions and the matches were subsequently sold by the Woodenware Co. at the regular standard price.

The Railroad Co. claimed that there was error in that the Woodenware Co. made two profits and it was entitled to only one profit, the actual loss; and the only damages would be the difference in freight rates and expenses incurred in reshipment to Cincinnati. Judgment was for the Woodenware Co. and was affirmed by the Hamilton Common Pleas. Upon prosecution of error the Court of Appeals held:

*1. The Woodenware Co-, was entitled to damages for the loss occasioned by the negligence of the Railroad. Co., and the latter reshipped the goods upon the understanding that the former company was to receive the profit lost and difference in freight charges. .
2. This concludes the transaction between the parties.
3. What was done by the Ault Co. with the matches thereafter was of no concern to the Railroad Co.
4. No error in judgments of lower courts.

Judgment affirmed.