Search Supreme Court Cases

LEIGH ELLIS & CO. V. DAVIS, 260 U. S. 682 (1923)

U.S. Supreme Court

Leigh Ellis & Co. v. Davis, 260 U.S. 682 (1923)

Leigh Ellis & Co. v. Davis

No. 246

Argued January 18, 19, 1923

Decided January 29, 1923

260 U.S. 682


1. Section 206(a) of the Transportation Act, providing that actions against the agent designated by the President shall be brought not later than two years from the passage of the act, did not set aside a shorter limitation provided in existing bills of lading. P. 260 U. S. 688.

2. A stipulation in a bill of lading that actions for loss, damage or delay shall be instituted only within two years and one day after delivery of the goods, or in case of failure to make delivery, then within two years and one day after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed, is reasonable and valid. P. 260 U. S. 689.

3. A decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission that such a stipulation was unreasonable, held not binding in this case. P. 260 U. S. 689.

4. The reasonableness of such a limitation is a matter of law. P. 260 U. S. 689.

5. When not affected by statute, a limitation prescribed by contract like the above applies to the action which is prosecuted to judgment, and is not extended by the bringing of a previous action. P. 260 U. S. 689.

6. An agreement limiting the time for bringing actions against the carrier "for loss, damage or delay" of goods shipped applies to claims that the goods delivered were short of the weight specified in the bills of lading. P. 260 U. S. 689.

276 F. 400 affirmed.

Error to a judgment affirming a judgment of the district court dismissing the petition in an action by the

Page 260 U. S. 683

transferee of bills of lading for failure to deliver the full weight of cotton covered by them.

Page 260 U. S. 687

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: LEIGH ELLIS & CO. V. DAVIS, 260 U. S. 682 (1923)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.