From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farris Co. v. the Wm. Schludersberg, T. J. Kurdle

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc For Former Opinion See 141 Fla. 462, 193 So. 429
May 17, 1940
142 Fla. 765 (Fla. 1940)

Opinion

Opinion Filed May 17, 1940

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Duval County, Bayard B. Shields, Judge.

Martin H. Long and Judson Freeman, for Petitioner;

Frank H. Heintz, for Respondent.


ON PETITION FOR REHEARING


On petition for rehearing, it is urged that we did not give sufficient consideration to the validity and effect of a certain C. A. F. contract which was a very material element in the cause. In other words, it is contended that the carload of boned beef which was the subject matter of this litigation was shipped from Jacksonville to Baltimore under C. A. F. contract, meaning cost and freight allowed to point of destination, being the equivalent F. O. B. from point of origin and that when so shipped the responsibility of the shipper ceases when the goods are delivered to the carrier.

There can be no doubt that this is the general rule as to goods shipped under C. A. F. contract. At the same time, if the issue is raised as to whether or not the goods moved from point of shipment promptly or when loaded were up to contract requirements evidence on such issues may be taken and if proven, judgment rendered accordingly. C. A. F. contract may not operate before time for the goods to move. After this, the consignor is not responsible for delicts.

In this case, the question of whether or not the car was prechilled properly and whether or not it contained "old cuts" contrary to contract was clearly in issue. Evidence was taken on these issues and then the car was consigned to the consignor in Baltimore so delivery to the consignor took place there. We are not convinced that error was committed on these points.

Former judgment reaffirmed and rehearing denied.

TERRELL, C. J., WHITFIELD, P. J., BUFORD, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, J. J., concur.

Justice BROWN not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.


Summaries of

Farris Co. v. the Wm. Schludersberg, T. J. Kurdle

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc For Former Opinion See 141 Fla. 462, 193 So. 429
May 17, 1940
142 Fla. 765 (Fla. 1940)
Case details for

Farris Co. v. the Wm. Schludersberg, T. J. Kurdle

Case Details

Full title:FARRIS AND COMPANY v. THE WILLIAM SCHLUDERSBERG, T. J. KURDLE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc For Former Opinion See 141 Fla. 462, 193 So. 429

Date published: May 17, 1940

Citations

142 Fla. 765 (Fla. 1940)
196 So. 184

Citing Cases

Sperry Rand Corporation v. Indus. Supply Corp.

" Ehrenzweig on Conflict of Laws 497, § 187. The only decision of a Florida court which has come to our…

Pierce v. Helz

Thus the problem here concerns the denial of a remedy, and generally the law of the forum has governed as to…