|
|
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Nieman-Marcus Co., 227 U.S. 469 (1913)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Nieman-Marcus Co., 227 U.S. 469 (1913)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 227 U.S. 456, click here.
Wells, Fargo & Company v. Nieman-Marcus Company No. 29 Argued November 5, 1912 Decided February 24, 1913 227 U.S. 469
ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Syllabus
Whether void or not under the state statute, a provision in an express receipt limiting recovery in case of loss or negligence is valid as to interstate shipment under the Carmack Amendment if fairly made for the purpose of applying to the shipment the lower of two rates based upon valuation. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491.
A statement filed in the case that a clause in a contract is void under a statute is a concession for purposes of argument as to a matter of law, and cannot conclude anyone, as it does not operate to withdraw the contract from the case nor its validity from the court’s consideration.
The reasonable and just consequence of misrepresentation of value to get the lower rate of shipment is not that the shipper recover nothing, but that he is estopped to recover more than the value declared to obtain the rate.
A shipper, by accepting a receipt reciting that the carrier is not to be held liable beyond a specified amount at which the property is thereby valued unless a different value than that is so stated, and thus obtaining a lower rate than that which he would have been obliged to pay had he declared the full value, declares and represents that the value does not exceed the specified amount.
There is no substantial distinction between a value stated on inquiry and one agreed upon or declared voluntarily.
The facts, which involve the liability of an express company on goods of undeclared value and also the construction of the Carmack Amendment, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Nieman-Marcus Co., 227 U.S. 469 (1913) in 227 U.S. 469 227 U.S. 470–227 U.S. 473. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=15161CQV7ZAPZX2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Nieman-Marcus Co., 227 U.S. 469 (1913), in 227 U.S. 469, pp. 227 U.S. 470–227 U.S. 473. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=15161CQV7ZAPZX2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Nieman-Marcus Co., 227 U.S. 469 (1913). cited in 1913, 227 U.S. 469, pp.227 U.S. 470–227 U.S. 473. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=15161CQV7ZAPZX2.
|