From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 18, 1946
65 N.E.2d 337 (N.Y. 1946)

Opinion

Argued December 3, 1945

Decided January 18, 1946

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, BOTEIN, J.

Joseph M. Proskauer, J. Alvin Van Bergh, Charles Trynin and Henry H. Shepard for appellants.

C. Austin White, Frank J. Mahony and Frederick L. Wheeler for respondent.


Judgment affirmed, with costs. Upon this appeal, questions of the application and interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Carmack and Cummins Amendments thereto were presented and necessarily passed upon. The appellants contended: that the respondent's liability in this cause was governed by the prevailing Michigan Law and not by the Interstate Commerce Act and such amendments and, further, that the attempted limitation of liability of the respondent was invalid and inapplicable under the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, because no choice of rates was afforded to the appellants and because no opportunity to declare value was accorded to appellants prior to checking. The court held to the contrary. No opinion.

Concur: LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, THACHER, DYE and MEDALIE, JJ.


Summaries of

Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 18, 1946
65 N.E.2d 337 (N.Y. 1946)
Case details for

Hartzberg v. New York Central Railroad Company

Case Details

Full title:JOHN M. HARTZBERG et al., Copartners under the Firm Name and Style of J…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 18, 1946

Citations

65 N.E.2d 337 (N.Y. 1946)
65 N.E.2d 337

Citing Cases

United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Slifkin

The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion in 268 App. Div. 904, 51 N.Y.S.2d 741. In 295 N.Y. 703, 65…

Margolis v. Greyhound Lines

As was stated in D'Utassy v. Barrett ( 219 N.Y. 420, 425), "It would be unjust and contrary to the policy of…