E. L. Welch Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1929, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Belle Cheney Springs Land & Development Co. v. Belle Cheney Sand & Gravel Co. (La. Ct. App. 1936)
- Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Lake Superior Consolidated Iron Mines (Minn. 1929)
- State Ex Rel. Inter-State Iron Co. v. Armson (Minn. 1926)
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
.On February 27, 1915, the Farmers’ Co-operative Society shipped a car of oats from Alpha, Minnesota, over the defendant’s line of railroad, under the usual uniform bill of lading, consigned to plaintiff at Minneapolis. The bill of lading contained the usual four months’ limitation provision for making claim for loss in ease the carrier failed to deliver the shipment. Plaintiff was a commission merchant at Minneapolis, received the bill of lading and paid the shipper for the oats in the usual course of business. The defendant failed to deliver the shipment. No claim for los|s was made until May 17, 1916.
This action was ‘brought on the theory of conversion, to recover the value of the car of oats. Defendant pleaded the limitation clause as a .bar to plaintiff’s right of recovery. The reply set up a waiver of the limitation clause. There was testimony in support of a waiver. At the close of the testimony the trial court directed a verdict for defendant, upon the theory that the defendant could not waive the limitation claujse as it would be contrary to the statutes of the state. A majority of the court are of the opinion that the trial court was in error. The rule is no longer an open question in this state. The carrier may waive the provisions of such limitation clause. Robinson v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 123 Minn. 495, 144 N. W. 220; Naumen v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 131 Minn. 217, 154 N. W. 1076; Shama v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. 128 Minn. 522, 151 N. W. 406; Ferris v. M. & St. L. R. Co. 143 Minn. 90, 173 N. W. 178.
The order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is reversed and a new trial granted.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.