323 Mass. 354 | Mass. | 1948
The evidence tended to show the following facts. On May 19, 1944, Russell Electric Company at Chicago entrusted to the defendant fifteen boxes of motor
On July 3, 1944, Russell Electric Company sent a letter to the defendant, addressed to its tracing department, the material part of which was as follows: “Consignee has reported that only 14 of the boxes were delivered, and we ask that you check and show proof of delivery of the entire 15 boxes that Were turned over to your driver.”
The plaintiff, the assignee of the rights of Raytheon Manufacturing Company, requested rulings that the letter of July 3, 1944, constituted a claim in writing within the requirement of the receipt, and that the plaintiff was entitled to a finding for $495 with interest. The judge denied the requests, and found for the defendant. The Appellate Division vacated that finding, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff for $495. The defendant appealed to this court.
The only question is whether the letter of July 3,1944, was a sufficient claim. Under the receipt, if a claim was made, it was immaterial whether it was made by the consignor or the consignee. Beltrami Co-operative Creamery Association v. American Railway Express Co. 160 Minn. 221. If we look at the letter without the aid of precedents, it would seem that the consignor was desirous of obtaining proof of delivery in order to hold the consignee for the price, rather than proof of nondelivery in order to hold the carrier. The letter contained no intimation that any action against the carrier was contemplated.
In Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway v. Blish Milling Co. 241 U. S. 190, 193, followed in Fisk Rubber Co. of New York v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, 240 Mass. 40, where a bill of lading required that claims be
We are of opinion that the letter to the defendant of July 3, 1944, did not constitute a "claim” within the language of the receipt.
Order of Appellate Division reversed.
Judgment for the defendant.