Norway Plains Co. v. Boston & Maine R.R.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
67 Mass. 263 (1854)
- Written by Alex Hall, JD
Facts
Norway Plains Co. (Norway) (plaintiff) hired Maine Railroad (the railroad) (defendant) to transport two packages by train to Boston. The first package arrived on Saturday and the second package on Monday. On Monday, an agent for Norway arrived at the station and confirmed from the waybill that the second package was on the train. However, he was notified that the package was in a rear car that was not yet accessible. Although the railroad did not expressly notify the agent that the first package was ready for pickup, the agent regularly picked up goods at the station and was aware that it had been scheduled for Saturday delivery. Nonetheless, realizing he would not deliver the second package to the store before it closed, the agent left the station without either package, intending to return in the morning. As was customary for shipments not received at unloading, the second package was unloaded and stored with the first package in the railroad warehouse. That night, the packages were destroyed in a warehouse fire. Norway brought an action to recover the value of the packages, arguing that the railroad had a duty to deliver the packages to the agent or notify him that the goods were ready for pickup. The railroad argued that its responsibilities became complete when the package was placed in the warehouse.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shaw, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.