Baker v. Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana Railroad

Citations

• 42 Ill. 73

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol evidence — contradicting a MU of lading. Although a common carrier, in receiving goods for transportation, may issue a bill of lading therefor, containing provisions restricting his common law liability, that is not conclusive upon the shipper, as to the terms upon which the goods are to be carried, but he may show by parol that there was a prior verbal agreement, under which the goods were shipped, and which did not provide for the restrictions upon the carrier’s liability contained in the bill of lading.</p> <p>2. Jury—must decide fasts. The practice in this State does not warrant the court in finding the facts, and directing the jury how to find their verdict.</p> <p>3. Parties—in actions for tort. In an action on the case against several railroad companies to recover damages resulting to property shipped over their several lines, by reason of delay in its transportation, the same rule applies as in other actions for tort, that a verdict of guilty may be found against a part of the defendants and an acquittal as to others, and a misjoinder of defendants cannot be alleged.</p>