GOLDSTEIN

v.

KLAGES, TRUSTEE

Citator

Cited By

• Tuschman v. The Pa. R.R. Co., 230 F.2d 787 (3d Cir. 1956)
  …has the burden of showing that the merchandise involved was in better condition when received by the carrier than on its delivery to the consignee. Ohio Galvanizing & Mfg. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 6 Cir., 1930, 39 F. 2d 840, 841, certiorari denied 282 U.S. 879, 51 S.Ct. 83, 75 L. Ed. 776. It is also contended by appellant that the bm of kding affords no assistance to pIaintiffs in their effort to prove their crane was turned over to the railroad in good C0nditi0n. In the printed receipt clause the railro…
• The NEW York v. Seaboard Sales Corp. et. al., 258 F.2d 376 (1st Cir. 1958)
  …lue at that time might be determined, and he would also show their damaged condition on delivery to indicate their lessened worth at that time. See Ohio Galvanizing & Mfg. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 6 Cir., 1930, 39 F. 2d 840, certiorari denied 1930, 282 U.S. 879, 51 S.Ct. 83, 75 L.Ed. 776. Thus the condition of the shippers’ goods either at the origin or at the termination of their transportation bears only upon their value at the beginning or at the end of transportation. But by stipulating the amount of…