¶1There was no evidence that the box had not been delivered to Gough, according to the directions with which it was sent by the plaintiff. Giving the fullest effect to the testimony of the plaintiff, it had no more tendency to show that the box was withheld or had been lost by the defendant than by Gough. The burden in this respect was upon the plaintiff, and she failed to maintain it. Smith v. First National Bank in Westfield, 99 Mass. 605. Exceptions sustained.
116 Mass. 97
Morley v. Eastern Express Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 28, 1874
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1874-10-28
<p>Evidence that A. delivered a box containing his property to a common carrier at one town to be carried to another town; that the box was directed to B. at the latter town; that A. had made efforts to find the box, but had not been able to do so; that he had made inquiries at both towns at the offices of the carrier; that he had not seen the box since he sent it; that he had inquired of B. about the box; is not sufficient evidence to maintain an action by A. against the carrier for the value of the box and its contents, although the defendant put in no evidence.</p>
Relies on Smith v. First National Bank
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1874-10-28
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1939
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →