Edmunds v. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 176
• 1920 Pa. Super. LEXIS 242

Syllabus

<p>Common carriers' — Shipments—Perishable freight — Loss- — Evidence — Sufficiency.</p> <p>In an action to recover from a common carrier for the loss of part of a shipment of potatoes which were frozen, a judgment for the plaintiff will be sustained, where there is sufficient evidence to, warrant the finding that the car containing the shipment was suitable for such purpose, that the potatoes were properly loaded, and that when the car arrived at its destination the doors had been tampered with and the bulkheads broken. Under such circumstances, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the potatoes actually destroyed will be affirmed. '</p> <p>Witnesses — Cross-examination—Objections.</p> <p>A refusal to allow the counsel for the defendant to introduce by way of cross-examination certain matters of defense is mot error, especially where the defendant made the statement that he had no objections to making the witness his own witness, and did not after-wards do so, although he had the opportunity.</p>