EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATION IN BILL OF LADING AS TO TIME FOR CLAIM OF LOSS

Authors

Abstract

P purchased potatoes in Michigan. He instructed the defendant railroad to deliver the potatoes to the warehouse of B when they should arrive in Richmond. Instead, some were sent to another warehouse. Before P discovered the mistake, the potatoes had spoiled. P made claim of loss six months and twenty days after the shipment left Michigan. The bill of lading provided: "Sec. 2 (b). Claims for loss or damage . . . must be made in writing . . . within six months after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed." The testimony of Neiss, freight clerk, who was called by the defendant, was to the effect that eight days would be a reasonable time for the delivery. D demurred to the evidence. Held, the demurrer is to be treated as a motion for a directed verdict, and the court or the jury would not be at liberty to ignore the testimony of Neiss, which was unimpeached and reasonable on its face. The demurrer ought to have been sustained. Chesapeake & O. Ry. v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 51 Sup. Ct. 453 (1931), reversing 154 Va. 1; 143 S.E. 629 (1927).

Recommended Citation

EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATION IN BILL OF LADING AS TO TIME FOR CLAIM OF LOSS, 30 Mich. L. Rev. 469 (1932).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol30/iss3/27