Court Opinion

ID: 9679803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:08:12.735116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:20.931164
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
We agree that the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Michigan Central Railroad Company v. Mark Owen & Company, 256 U.S. 427, 41 S.Ct. 554, 65 L.Ed. 1032, as to the meaning of the language used in uniform bills of lading must control where there has been no delivery of the shipment, and tire goods remain in the possession of and under the control of the carrier. But when possession of the goods has been delivered to the consignee, the carrier cannot be held liable as an insurer. In the cited case the Supreme Court expressly held in reversing the Supreme Court of Illinois that the State court had erred in its holding that “the bill of lading provides for property ‘not removed’ — not to property ‘delivered’ or ‘not delivered,’ * * The Court went on to state of the distinction which the State court had sought to make “The answer [i. e. of the State court] puts too much emphasis upon the distinction between property removed and property delivered. The property here was not delivered * * 256 U.S. at pages 431, 432, 41 S.Ct. at page 556.
Motion for rehearing refused.
iMONTEITH, C. J., not sitting.