Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
RAU v. BOSWORTH, RECEIVER, 1900 — 179 U.S. 443 · caselaw · US
General
RAU v. BOSWORTH, RECEIVER
179 U.S. 44345 L. Ed. 268·Supreme Court of the United States·1900
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
RAU v. BOSWORTH, RECEIVER.
certiorari to the circuit court oe appeals eor the seventh circuit.
No. 13.
Argued October 24, 25, 1899.
Decided December 17, 1900.
This case having been argued with No. 12, ante, 415, at the same time, and by the same counsel, the decision of the court in that case is followed in this.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Burton Harrison for Rau.
Mr. Bluford Wilson for Bosworth.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is another of the claims in intervention which originated from the fire in a railroad yard at East St. Louis on the night of October 28, 1894, referred to in the opinion just delivered in Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, No. 12 of this term. The claim of Rau was for the value of two cars of barley shipped from Wykoff, Minnesota, consigned to the Orthwein Grain Company, St. Louis, to be sold for the account of the consignor. The cars were delivered by a connecting carrier to the Peoria Company and were deposited on its tracks in a portion of the Terminal Association yards at East St. Louis on the afternoon of October 25,1894. While so held, awaiting orders for further movement, the cars and contents were destroyed by the fire in question.
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decree which had been entered by the Circuit Court in favor of the claimant. Applying the principles declared in the opinion delivered in the Huntting Elevator Company case,
The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must he reversed a/nd the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois affvrmed.