Lane v. Boston & Albany Railroad
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bean v. Security Fur Storage Warehouse, Inc. (Mass. 1962)
- McCready v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. (S.C. 1948)
- Robitaille v. Netoco Community Theatre of North Attleboro, Inc. (Mass. 1940)
- McCrea v. Beverly Gas & Electric Co. (Mass. 1914)
- Levi v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1911)
- Strauss v. Pullman Palace Car Co. (La. Ct. App. 1909)
- Pitcher v. Old Colony Street Railway Co. (Mass. 1907)
- Long v. Inhabitants of Athol (Mass. 1907)
- Bachant v. Boston & Maine Railroad (Mass. 1905)
- Blair v. Security Bank (Va. 1905)
- Havens v. R.I. Suburban Railway Company (R.I. 1904)
- Chattanooga Machinery Co. v. Hargraves (Tenn. 1903)
- Clarke v. Warwick Cycle Manufacturing Co. (Mass. 1899)
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Willamette Mill Co. (Or. 1896)
- Durkee v. India Mutual Insurance (Mass. 1893)
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Skellie (Ga. 1891)
- Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railway Co. v. Closser (Ind. 1890)
- Boston & Maine Railroad v. Ordway (Mass. 1886)
- Willett v. Rich (Mass. 1886)
- Simpson v. Waldby (Mich. 1886)
- Peverly v. City of Boston (Mass. 1884)
- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Campbell (Ohio 1881)
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
1. The evidence, introduced at the trial, that the defendants received the plaintiffs’ property and were paid the freight for transporting it to Palmer, and that the property on its arrival there was put into the defendants’ depot, was demanded of them by the plaintiffs, and not delivered by the defendants, was sufficient to support the declaration, and, if believed by the jury, entitled the plaintiffs to recover, unless the defendants proved that it had been lost without any negligence on their part. Cass v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 14 Allen, 448.
2. The declarations of their freight agent in answer to the plaintiffs’ demand were made in the performance of his duty, and therefore rightly admitted in evidence against the defendants. Morse v. Connecticut River Railroad, 6 Gray, 450. The form in which they were expressed might affect the weight which the jury would allow them, but did not make them inadmissible.
3. The testimony of the same witness as to his conduct and the result of it in other cases was rightly rejected as immaterial. Lewis v. Smith, 107 Mass. 334.
4. The defendants admit that, after the property had arrived at its destination, they were under the liability of warehousemen to keep the goods with ordinary care for a reasonable time. The letter from the plaintiffs to the defendants, containing directions as to delivering part of the goods, did not amount to a contract limiting the time during which the defendants would be obliged to take care of the rest. The defendants, knowing that the plain
5. The degree of care usually exercised by other railroad corporations under similar circumstances was rightly submitted to the jury as competent, and not as controlling, evidence upon the question whether the defendants had exercised ordinary care in this case. Cass v. Boston & Lowell Railroad, 14 Allen, 448.
Upon the whole case,, therefore, the defendants have no ground of exception, either to the rulings upon evidence, to the instructions given, or to the refusal to give the instructions requested.
Exceptions overruled.
Colt, J., did not sit in tins case.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.