Case Name: Maltus, Appellant, v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1914-04-13
Citations: 245 Pa. 71
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 352
Parties: Maltus, Appellant, v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company.
Judges: Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 245
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
Maltus, Appellant, v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company.
Common carrier — Misdelivery of goods — Court and jury.
In an action against a common carrier for alleged failure to deliver goods to a consignee, the court properly directed the jury to find for the defendant where the plaintiffs failed to sustain their averment of misdeliveries and the defendant showed that proper deliveries had been made.
Argued March 17,1914.
Appeal, No. 352, Jan. Term, 1913, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 3, Philadelphia Co., Dec. T., 1911, No. 3937, on verdict for defendant in case of William A. Maltus and Heber J. Ware, trading as Maltus & Ware, v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company.
Before Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Trespass against a common carrier in trover and conversion alleging misdelivery of a consignment of goods. Before McMichael, P. J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
The court directed a verdict for the defendant and judgment was entered thereon. Plaintiffs appealed.
Error assigned, inter alia, was in directing a verdict for the defendant.
E. Spencer Miller, for appellants.
Paul Freeman, with him J. Hayden Oliver and Daniel R. Reese, for appellee.
April 13, 1914:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
In this action against the defendant, a common carrier, for alleged failure to deliver goods to a consignee, the plaintiffs failed to sustain their averment of misdeliveries, while, on the other hand, the defendant showed that proper deliveries had been made. In his charge to the jury, directing them to find for the defendant, the learned trial judge concisely, clearly and correctly presented the situation, and, as we have discovered no error in any of the assignments, the judgment is affirmed.