Summary

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Erie Company v. Shuart — Opinion of the Court

In the instant case, when injured, the animals were awaiting removal from the car through a cattle chute alleged to be owned, operated and controlled by the railroad. If its employes had then been doing the work of unloading there could be no doubt that transportation was still in progress; and we think that giving active charge of the removal to respondents, as agreed, was not enough to end the interstate movement. The animals were in the car; no adequate time for unloading had transpired. The carrier had not fully performed the services incident to final delivery imposed by law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Erie Company v. Shuart — Opinion of the Court

By letting down a bridge they at once connected the chute and car and were about to lead out four horses, when an engine pushed other cars against it and injured the animals therein. No written claim was made for the loss or damage as provided by the bill of lading; and when sued the carrier defended upon that ground. Respondents maintain that transportation had ended when the accident occurred and consequently no written claim was necessary.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature