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.
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. BOSWORTH, RECEIVER, 1900 — 179 U.S. 442 · caselaw · US
Administrative
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. BOSWORTH, RECEIVER
179 U.S. 44245 L. Ed. 267·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
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. BOSWORTH, RECEIVER.
certiorari to the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit.
No. 11.
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 petitioners.
Mr. Bluford Wilson for Bosworth.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice White]
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision of the controversy presented in this record is controlled by the principles announced in the opinion just delivered in Huntting Elevator Company v. Bosworth, No. 12 of this term. The claim of the railroad company was for the value of certain cars, admittedly owned by it, which had been received by the Peoria Company at various times on and prior to October 28, 1894, from a connecting carrier, upon shipments of barley from various points to commission merchants in St. Louis, the cars, except in one or two instances, being routed on the way bills to East St. Louis. The cars so taken by the Peoria Company were deposited on the tracks at East St. Louis set apart for the use of the Peoria Company under the circumstances .disclosed in the opinion in the Huntting Elevator Company case, and, while awaiting orders from the consignees for further movement, were destroyed in the fire, of October 28, 1894. The Circuit Court entered a decree in favor of the railroad company, but this decree was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.
For the reasons stated in the opinion in the Huntting Elevator Company case
The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed and the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois affirmed.