Skip to main content
· 12/10/1906

Goldstein v. Adams Express Co.

Citations

  • 32 Pa. Super. 190
  • 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 321

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Common carriers — Express companies — ■Loss of money — • Evidence — Charge.</p> <p>In an action against an express company to recover for the loss of a package of money, there was no evidence that the company contracted to ship the package on the first train. The defendant presented this point: “That inasmuch as the package of money did not go on the first train, it is not evidence of defendant’s negligence.” The court in affirming this point qualified the affirmance in such a way as practically to leave it to the jury to say whether there was negligence or not in failing to ship it by the first train. Held, that the defendant was entitled to an unqualified affirmance of the point, and that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed.</p> <p>In the above case it appeared that the plaintiff signed a printed statement indorsed on the envelope that it was sealed with wax in his presence. This indorsement was not included in the printed terms and conditions on which the company agreed to carry the package, and to which the plaintiff agreed by acceptance of the bill of lading. The plaintiff was permitted to testify that the wax seals had not been placed on the envelope at the time the statement was signed, and the envelope was delivered to the defendant’s agent. The other oral testimony was such that the court could not declare it to be an admitted or undisputed fact that the contents of the package were in the same condition when it was received at the destination as when the seals were placed upon it at the place of shipment. Held, (1) that the plaintiff was not estopped by reason of his signing the certificate, from testifying that the seals were not on the envelope at the time he signed; (2) that the whole question was for the jury under appropriate instructions as to the weight to be given, in the first place to the plaintiff’s written statement indorsed upon the envelope, and in the second place to the appearance of the seals upon the en

Judges: Beaver, Head, Ienderson, Morrison, Moréis, Orlady, Porter, Reargument, Rice

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.