Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor
Cases that cite this one
27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Rushton (Ind. Ct. App. 1925)
- Michigan Central Railroad v. S. J. Peabody Lumber Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1921)
- Robbins v. Brazil Syndicate R. & B. Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- F. W. McNeely & Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
- Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. Electro Magnetic Gold Mining Co. (Ind. 1912)
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Implement Co. (Kan. 1906)
- First National Bank v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. (Wash. 1902)
- Butler v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)
- Adams Express Co. v. White (Md. 1918)
- Gregory v. Arms (Ind. Ct. App. 1911)
- Friedersdorf v. Lacy (Ind. 1910)
- City of Decatur v. McKean (Ind. 1906)
- Sheffer v. Hines (Ind. 1898)
- Eliason v. Bronnenberg (Ind. 1897)
- Supreme Council of the Catholic Benevolent Legion v. Boyle (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)
- Rhodes v. Hilligoss (Ind. Ct. App. 1896)
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Moline Plow Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1895)
- Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Condon (Ind. Ct. App. 1894)
- Barnard v. Sherley (Ind. 1893)
- McFadden v. Schroeder (Ind. Ct. App. 1893)
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Kurtz (Ind. Ct. App. 1893)
- Simpson v. Dufour (Ind. 1890)
- Ryan v. Hurley (Ind. 1889)
- Rush v. Thompson (Ind. 1887)
- Belt Railroad & Stock Yard Co. v. Mann (Ind. 1886)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The complaint of the appellee alleges that the appellant was, on the 4th day of September, 1882, a common carrier; that on that day he delivered to its agent at Martinsville twenty-four thousand pounds of green corn to be transported to Indianapolis; that the appellant undertook to deliver the corn to one Perry as the consignee, at Indianapolis, on that day, and that Perry was the consignee. Negligence in failing to deliver the corn is alleged, and damages are shown. To this complaint the appellant unsuccessfully demurred.
It is affirmed by the appellant’s counsel, that the complaint is bad, for the reason that it affirmatively shows that the cause of action is in Perry, the consignee, and not in Poor, the consignor. This position is well assumed. The general rule unquestionably is that the right of action is in the consignee. It is so laid down in the text-books, and it has been so declared by this court. Browne Carriers, section 596; Hutchinson Carriers, section 727; Madison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Whitesel, 11 Ind. 55; Pennsylvania Co. v. Holderman, 69 Ind. 18.
There are exceptions to this general rule, but facts showing that the case forms an exception must be pleaded. The law presumes that the consignee is the real party in interest, and unless there are facts pleaded showing the contrary, this general presumption will prevail. We can find nothing in the complaint before us which takes the case out of the general rule. If the property was owned by the appellant, that fact should have been averred. In the absence of this averment, the presumption of which we have spoken rules the case.
Where a complaint is challenged by demurrer, and an exception is reserved, we can not look into the evidence to as-certain whether injury did or did not result. The sufficiency
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.