Note and Comment

Authors

Edwin C. Goddard, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
George Seletto, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
Edson R. Sunderland, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
Victor H. Lane, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
Burke Shartel, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow
George E. Longstaff, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Carriers - Second Cummins Amendment - It was seven years after the Carmack Amendment of the Hepburn Act of i9o6 before the Supreme Court began that series of decisions, extending from Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (1913), to George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 236 U. S. 278 (1915), which directly resulted in the First Cummins Amendment of March, 1915. One has only to read those cases, reviewed in 13 Micn. L. REv. 59o, and other notes referred to in 17 MICH. L. Rzv. 183, to see that the language of the Cummins Amendment was framed expressly to undo the interpretations of the court on the Carmack Amendment, and make the liability of the car'-ier just what during the years 19o6-1912 it had generally been understood the Carmack Amendment intended it to be. Indeed, from the decision of New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants Bank, 6 How. (U. S.) 344 (1848), to the present day there has been a contest between the courts and legislatures as to what should be the law of liability of common carriers, the courts through one device or another opening a way of escape for the carrier from the strict common law liability, and the legislatures, state and federal, passing statute after statute to bring the law back to its pristine simplicity and strictness.

Recommended Citation

Edwin C. Goddard, George Seletto, Edson R. Sunderland, Victor H. Lane, Burke Shartel & George E. Longstaff, Note and Comment, 20 Mich. L. Rev. 765 (1922).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol20/iss7/5