Oelbermann

Oelbermann v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha

Good Law
3 F.2d 5·1925 A.M.C. 218·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3718
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 5, 1925No. 4257California910 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

(after stating the facts as above). The text-books are in accord in stating the rule that a condition in a contract of carriage requiring that notice of claim of damages be presented within a stated tixhe may be waived by the carrier, either expressly or by conduct inconsistent with an intention to rely upon it, and that where a claim is presented after the time so limited, and payment is refused for reasons not involving the promptness of the notice, but on entirely different grounds, there is a waiver. 1 Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) p. 473 ; 4 R. C. L. 799; 10 C. J. 342.

In the text last cited the rule is thus stated : “Where waivers are not prohibited, the rejection of a claim on grounds other than noneompliance or an insufficient compliance with a contractual requirement that notice of claim for loss or injury shall be given the carrier, operates as a waiver of the contractual requirement. In other words, where the carrier states a specific ground of objection, any other objection which it could have made is waived.” The text is in accord with the decided -weight of authority., Naumen v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 131 Minn. 217 , 154 N. W. 1076 ; Banks v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.