Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Valco Manufacturing Co. v. Rickard

Decided: November 14, 1952.

VALCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
C. RICKARD & SONS, INC., A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT



Eastwood, Goldmann and Francis. The opinion of the court was delivered by Francis, J.c.c. (temporarily assigned).

Francis

Appellant sued on account of damage alleged to have been sustained to its goods while being transported by respondent, a common carrier. This appeal followed a jury verdict in favor of respondent.

Several alleged trial errors are raised as grounds for reversal. However, respondent contends that even if errors were committed appellant suffered no harm because on at least one phase of the action, to which all others were subordinate, the trial court should have taken the case from the jury and granted the motion for judgment in its favor.

The record shows that two separate series of shipments were involved in the dispute between the parties. The first series concerned 25 shipments of certain aluminum caps from New York to Fairfield, Connecticut; the second series concerned an unstated number of shipments of such caps from Fairfield to a consignee in New York, which was a customer of appellant. The complaint charges that respondent caused damage to certain of the caps on the trips to Fairfield, and damage to another quantity thereof on the return trips to New York. In determining the case, each operation, one to Fairfield, and the other back to New York, requires individual consideration.

The appellant manufactured small aluminum caps on which it desired to have certain processing work done by a concern known as Aristol, Inc. in Fairfield, Connecticut; upon completion of the work there the caps were to be sent

by Aristol, Inc. to a customer of plaintiff's in New York City.

Many thousands of caps were involved in the shipments to Aristol, Inc. and their interstate transportation by defendant as a motor carrier for hire under certain bills of lading which named Aristol, Inc. as consignee, was conceded. The nature of the case is such that in dealing with the carriage and delivery to Aristol, Inc., specific mention must be made of the dates of shipment by Valco and receipt by Aristol. The dates follow:

Date of shipment, as shown Date of delivery

on each bill of lading.

1. May 14, 1951 May 15, 1951

2. May 15, 1951 May 16, 1951

3. May 16, 1951 May 17, 1951

4. May 17, 1951 May 18, 1951

5. May 21, 1951 May 21, 1951

6. May 23, 1951 May 23, 1951

7. May 24, 1951 May 24, 1951

8. May 25, 1951 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.