Bashar v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- Carter v. Jones (W. Va. 1960)
- Carter v. Jones (W. Va. 1960)
- Wright v. Standard Ultramarine and Color Co. (W. Va. 1955)
- Sheppard v. Meridian Insurance (W. Va. 1930)
- State v. Christian (W. Va. 1926)
- Coal Run Coal Co. v. Cecil (W. Va. 1923)
- McKenzie v. Mackall (W. Va. 1920)
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 demurrer to the declaration was properly overruled. The pleading is not subject to the criticism that it does not allege a promise to pay, and therefore is not good in assumpsit. It is a declaration on a contract to carry goods. The promise and undertaking safely to carry and deliver is plainly averred. The declaration as a whole has been copied from the form given in 4 Minor’s Institutes, 3d ed., pt. 2, page 1682. It is undoubtedly good. Plaintiff’s counsel seems to think it is not good because it does not allege a promise of payment. But it is not based on a case for the payment of money. It is based solely on a case for the carriage of goods. The promise to carry, not a promise to pay, is therefore the gist of the assump-sit. The failure to fulfil a promise safely to carry and deliver
The other questions presented can not be decided without a consideration of the evidence introduced at the trial of the action. The evidence is certified and printed -with the record; but has not been made a part thereof by a bill" of exceptions. We are therefore precluded from looking to the same.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.