Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Martin Jessee Motors, Inc. v. Reading Co, 181 F.2d 766, 3rd Cir. (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views1 page
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that Martin Jessee Motors could not recover damages from Reading Company under the Bill of Lading Act. While Martin Jessee Motors was victim of an apparent fraud, Reading Company had no involvement in the fraud. Martin Jessee Motors also did not prove its title to specific property as required under the Bill of Lading Act to recover damages. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's opinion that the loss must remain with Martin Jessee Motors as the victim of the fraud.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1950-05-01 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 181 F.2d 766 Docket: 10135

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that Martin Jessee Motors could not recover damages from Reading Company under the Bill of Lading Act. While Martin Jessee Motors was victim of an apparent fraud, Reading Company had no involvement in the fraud. Martin Jessee Motors also did not prove its title to specific property as required under the Bill of Lading Act to recover damages. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's opinion that the loss must remain with Martin Jessee Motors as the victim of the fraud.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views1 page

    Martin Jessee Motors, Inc. v. Reading Co, 181 F.2d 766, 3rd Cir. (1950)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the lower court's decision that Martin Jessee Motors could not recover damages from Reading Company under the Bill of Lading Act. While Martin Jessee Motors was victim of an apparent fraud, Reading Company had no involvement in the fraud. Martin Jessee Motors also did not prove its title to specific property as required under the Bill of Lading Act to recover damages. The appellate court agreed with the lower court's opinion that the loss must remain with Martin Jessee Motors as the victim of the fraud.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 1

    181 F.

    2d 766

    MARTIN JESSEE MOTORS, Inc.


    v.
    READING CO.
    No. 10135.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued April 4, 1950.
    Decided May 1, 1950.

    J. E. Marks, Lexington, Ky., Louis Levitt, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.


    Thomas Raeburn White, Philadelphia, Pa., W. Wilson White, White,
    Williams & Scott, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
    Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and GOODRICH and HASTIE, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM.

    We have carefully considered the points raised by the appellant in its brief and
    oral argument. The appellant was victimized by an apparent fraud but the
    Reading Company had no part therein and should not be compelled to shoulder
    the blame. The loss must lie on the appellant where it has fallen. The appellant
    bases its claim upon Section 22 of the Bill of Lading Act, as amended, 49
    U.S.C.A. 102. It can prevail under that Act only by proving its title to specific
    property. It has not done so and therefore the decision of the court below is
    correct.

    Accordingly we will affirm the judgment upon the able opinion of Judge
    Follmer, D.C., 87 F.Supp. 318.

    You might also like