Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. W.f. Jacoby & Company

• 1916 • 242 U.S. 89 • White Court
In the case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. W.F. Jacoby & Company in 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving freight charges and liability for damage to goods during transportation. The plaintiff, W.F. Jacoby & Co., had shipped goods via Pennsylvania Railroad but found them damaged upon arrival due to inadequate packing by the shipper itself rather than any negligence by the railroad company. The court held that under federal law (the Carmack Amendment), when a carrier...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1916
Docket: 22
242 U.S. 89
37 S. Ct. 49
61 L. Ed. 165
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1532
Argued: Oct 20, 1915

Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. W.f. Jacoby & Company

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. W.F. Jacoby & Company in 1916, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving freight charges and liability for damage to goods during transportation. The plaintiff, W.F. Jacoby & Co., had shipped goods via Pennsylvania Railroad but found them damaged upon arrival due to inadequate packing by the shipper itself rather than any negligence by the railroad company. The court held that under federal law (the Carmack Amendment), when a carrier issues a bill of lading without noting visible defects in packaging or condition of goods at origin, it cannot later claim those defects as defense against damages unless such facts were known to both parties at time of shipment's acceptance for transport.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. W.F. Jacoby & Company, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of a contract between the parties involved in this case. He argued that there was no clear evidence to suggest that Pennsylvania Railroad had agreed to be held liable for any damages caused by delays in transportation unless they were due to negligence on their part. According to him, it would not make sense for a company like Pennsylvania Railroad, which has little control over certain factors such as weather conditions or mechanical failures, to agree to such terms without explicitly stating so in its contracts with customers like W.F. Jacoby & Co., who are fully aware of these risks when entering into agreements involving freight transportations services.

Opinion written by Justice WRDay
Decided: Dec 04, 1916
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms