Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1902

Cote v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · Decided November 25, 1902 · Holmes

182 Mass. 290; 65 N.E. 400; 1902 Mass. LEXIS 1015

Cases that cite this one

11 later published cases cite this decision.

A. S. Burg Co. v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1954)
Goodman v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (Mass. 1936)
Thomas McCabe Industries v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Potter County Court of Common Pleas 1928)
Lyon v. Boston & Maine Railroad (Mass. 1927)
Northern Industrial Chemical Co. v. Director General of Railroads (Mass. 1924)
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. C. C. Whitnack Produce Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1922)
Wray, Moore & Co. v. American Ry. Ex. Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1921)
P. Garvan, Inc. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad (Mass. 1911)
Vuille v. Pennsylvania Railroad (Pa. Super. Ct. 1910)
Colbath v. Bangor & Aroostook Railroad (Me. 1909)
Bullock v. Haverhill & Boston Dispatch Co. (Mass. 1904)

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

Holmes, C. J.

This is an action for damage to freight delivered by the plaintiff to the Boston and Maine Railroad at Lawrence to he carried to New Bedford, and delivered by that road to the defendant for the latter to complete the transportation. The freight was in a sealed car, and it does not appear by which road the damage was done. The case was submitted to the Superior Court on agreed facts with power to draw inferences, and that court ordered judgment for the plaintiff. The *291defendant appealed, rather in the hope that this court might discover some distinction between freight and passenger’s baggage than on any articulate reason for supposing one to exist. We have failed to make the discovery. As was pointed out in Moore v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad, 173 Mass. 335, 337, the so-called presumption that the harm was done on the last road, although started as a presumption of fact, has been fortified if not maintained on grounds of convenience. These grounds apply equally to freight.

Judgment for plaintiff.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.