Fulton v. Allard's Moving & Storage, Inc., 139 N.H. 582 (1995)

Citation: Fulton v. Allard's Moving & Storage, Inc., 139 N.H. 582 (1995)
Parent Document: Fulton v. Allard's Moving & Storage, Inc., 139 N.H. 582 (1995)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 1995-06-06
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8091445/fulton-v-allards-moving-storage-inc/ ↗

Full Text

670 chars

The plaintiff first argues that the defendant does not have a valid carrier’s lien. A carrier may have a lien on goods covered by a bill of lading for storage or transportation charges incurred subsequent to its receipt of the goods. RSA 382-A:7-307. It is “effective against the consignor and any person who permitted the bailor to have control or possession of the goods unless the carrier had notice that the bailor lacked such authority.” RSA 382-A:7-307(2). The lien is effective against the plaintiff in this case because she permitted the defendant, the bailor, to have both control and possession of her personal property. RSA 540-A:3, VII (Supp. 1994) provides:

Other Sections in This Document (11)

Full Text