Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 27 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 27 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

(g) Contracts of Shipment Made with Joint Agent of Carriers, § 3666.
(h) Liability for Negligence of Joint Agent, § 3667.
(i) Damages to Freight Resulting from Violation of Traffic Agreement,

§ 3668.
(j) Agreements Not Exempting Carrier from Liability to Owner of Goods,

§ 3669.
(k) Contract Making Payment of Freight Charges or Indorsement of Guar-
antee on Waybill Essential to Delivery, § 3670.
(1) Diversion by First Two Carriers and Receipt by Third without Suffi-
cient Shipping Instructions, § 3671.
(m) Injuries to Live Stock from Failure to Properly Feed Them, § 3672.
IV. Carriers of Passengers, §§ 3673-3690.

A. Traffic Arrangements between Carriers, § 3673.

B. System of Dominant and Subordinate Carriers, § 3674.

C. Transportation beyond Carrier's Line, §§ 3675-3678.

a. Duty to Transport, § 3675.

b. Contracts for Through Transportation, §§ 3676-3678.

(1) Power to Contract, § 3676.

(2) What Constitutes a Contract for Through Transportation — Effect of Con-

tract, § 3677.

(3) Liability for Acts of Agent Making the Contract, § 3678.

D. Obligation of Carrier to Honor Tickets Issued by Another Carrier, § 3679.

E. On What Trains Passengers Received from a Connecting Carrier Must Be

Transported, § 3680.

F. Through Tickets Limited as to Time, § 3681.

G. Injuries to Passengers, §§ 3682-3690.

a. In General, § 3682.

b. Liability of Initial Carrier, §§ 3683-3689.

(1) Injury on Wharf Connecting Carrier's Line with Steamboat, § 3683.

(2) Injuries on the Line of the Succeeding or a Subsequent Carrier, §§ 3684-


(a) Injuries Resulting from Misrepresentation of Initial Carrier's Agent as

to the Best Route, § 3684.

(b) Injuries Resulting from Negligence of a Subordinate Carrier, § 3685.

(c) Liability under Contract, §§ 3686-3689.
aa. In General, § 3686.

bb. Effect of Sale of Coupon Ticket, § 3687.

cc. Liability for Accident Happening on a Special Excursion Train, § 3688.
dd. Liability for Assault by Employee of a Connecting Carrier, § 3689.
c. Effect of Agreements between Connecting Carriers and Joint Liability, § 3690.

§ 3596. Who Are Connecting Carriers. — Whether railroads having a
physical connection are independent, connecting carriers, or merely branches of a
system of roads controlled and operated by a single company, is a ques-
tion to be determined upon the facts of the particular case.^ A con-

1. Intermediate carrier held to control connected with the Union Pacific, which
and operate initial carrier. — A contract of connected with another road, which car-
shipment over the O. road was headed, ried the goods to their destination. The
"Union Pacific System." The O. road Union Pacific owns the most of the stock



}§ 3596-3597

tract between a railroad company and a lumber company whereby the latter
agrees to build a road from a connection with the railroad to its mill, the lumber
company's road being intended to be used solely for its private business, is not a
contract between connecting carriers.- If on the arrival of goods at their desti-
nation, where they were carried by connecting carriers under a through bill of
lading, the consignee was notified, and the goods were then delivered by a transfer
company, acting at the request of the consignee, the transfer company was not a
connecting carrier.^ There are statutes in some states defining connecting car-
riers, and some of these statutory definitions have been construed by the courts.^

§ 3597. Rights, Duties and Liabilities in General. — In some states
where a railroad is adjacent to another and capable of being joined to it by a
switch, the right is given to make such connection, whether it be voluntarily
granted or not.^ A common carrier is as much bound to carry for another com-
mon carrier as for other persons.*^ Railroad companies have a right to unite in
continuous lines for greater facilities in the transportation of goods and passen-
gers, but any agreement that a railroad company shall at a certain terminus re-
fuse or discriminate against freight which comes to it over other than its connect-
ing line is void, as against public policy." In the absence of a special contract, a
common carrier is not responsible beyond the terminus of its own line.^ Thus,
in the absence of such a contract it is not liable for the negligence of the em-

of the O. road. The tjiree lines men-
tioned are all operated under the name
of the "Union Pacific System." The gen-
eral offices of the roads are the same,
though separate books are kept, and the
officers occupy corresponding offices for
each road. In 1893, all three lines passed
under the control of the same receiver in
a single action. Held to show that the
Union Pacific controlled and operated
the O. road, so as to be the contracting
carrier. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Vincent,
78 N. W. 457, 58 Neb. 171.

2. Contract between railroad and lum-
ber company not a contract between con-
necting carriers. — Taenzer & Co. v. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 170 Fed. 240, 95 C. C.
A. 43f).

3. Transfer company to whom goods
are delivered at consignee's request. —
Nanson v. Jacob. 93 Mo. 331, 6 S. W.
246, 3 Am. St. Rep. 531.

4. Statutory definitions construed. —
Under the Georgia statutes, Civ. Code, §§
2212, 2213 (Code of 1882. §§ 719(q),
719(r) ) connecting railroad lines are ad-
jacent roads, capable of being joined l)y
switch at the terminus of either road or
anywhere where the two roads meet or
converge or connect, at village or depot
or city. Logan & Co. v. Central Railrdad,
74 Ga. G84; Georgia R. Co. v. Maddox,
lit; f",a. 0), 42 S. K. 315.

In Texas a series of railway switches
belonging jointly to several railroads,
And on which it is possible to run cars
from the tracks of one road having no
interest thcrtin to lliose of another r(>a<l
about three-quarters of a mile away, in
the same city, is not a connecting line
between the two rfiads under Rev. St.
arts. 4535, 4536, flefining connecting lines

to be whenever two or more railroads
doing business in the state shall connect
with each other, by crossing each other's
tracks or otherwise, so as to form a con-
tinuous line from one point in the state
to another point in the state. Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 54 S. W. 1031, judgment af-
hrmed in 56 S. W. 328, 93 Tex. 482.

5. Right to make connection where
roads are adjacent. — This is the rule un-
der the Georgia statute, Civ. Code, §§
2212, 2213 (Code 1882, §§ 719(q) 719(r) ).
Where a railroad is adjacent to another
and capable of being joined to it by a
switch, either at its terminus or any
where along its line where they meet or
converge. Logan & Co. v. Central Rail-
road, 74 Ga. 684; Georgia R. Co. v. Mad-
cox, 116 Ga. 64, 42 S. E. 315.

6. Duty of carrier to carry for other
carriers. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cen-
tral Stockyards Co., 97 S. W. 778, 30 Ky.
L. Rep. 18. See post, "Duty to Receive
and Transport Cars and Freight Deliv-
ered l)y a Connecting Carrier," § 3614.

7. Railroad company can not discrimi-
nate in favor of connecting line. — Denver,
etc., R. Co. V. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 110
U. S. 667. 4 S. Ct. 185, 28 L. Ed. 291, 16
Am. Si Eng. R. Cas. 57.

Under the Texas statutes, Rev. St. arts.
4535, 4530, a railroad oomiiaiiy is re-
quired to receive and transport freight
Irom connecting lines without discrimina-
tion. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gulf, etc., R.
Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 54 S. W. 1031, af-
firincd 93 Tex. 182, 56 S. W. 328.

8. No liability beyond terminus in ab-
sence of special contract. — Chesapeake,
etc.. R. Co. 7'. O'Gara, etc., Co.. 139 S.
W. K03, Ml Kv. 561.

§§ 3597-3600 carriers. 3248

ployees of a connecting carrier/^ But where a shipment and undertaking of con-
necting carriers to transport is a joint one, every carrier is Hable for the neg-
ligence of each.^^

§§ 3598-3672. Carriers of Goods and Live Stock— § 3598. Who Is
the Initial Carrier. — The initial carrier of goods is not necessarily the one who
first receives the goods from the shipper, but is the one who first receives the
goods with an undertaking to transport and safely deliver them to the consignee
at the place of destination. ^^

§§ 3599-3600. Traffic Arrangements between Carriers— § 3599. Va-
lidity. — Where a contract is made between a railroad company and a connecting
lake transportation company, with the bona fide purpose of regulating through
trafiic in a reasonable and just manner, to their mutual advantage, the receipts to
be divided between them in a fixed proportion, each engaging to use its best en-
deavors to throw its through traffic into the hands of the other, and agreeing to
pay a fixed sum for each passenger and each ton of freight carried over its line
and not delivered to the other, the questions whether such contract is ultra vires
as to the railroad company, and whether it creates a monopoly, depend upon the
reasonableness of the regulation, which can only be determined by its practical
working.i2 fhe right of one carrier to enter into arrangements with another car-
rier to forward its goods, and to refuse to do so with others, or to permit such
others to avail themselves of the facilities constructed by the original carrier for
that purpose, is not altered because the facility so constructed by it happens to be
a wharf in the harbor of a city instead of some structure on land.^'^ x^ contract
by one carrier with another that it will not receive goods destined to a point be-
yond its own line is illegal, and furnishes no excuse for its refusal to receive
goods so destined.^"*

§ 3600. Construction. — Judicial interpretations of some of the peculiar
provisions of traffic arrangements or contracts between connecting carriers will
be found in the appended note.^^

9. Liability for negligence. — Hartley v. necting railroads, arranged to carry cars
St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 115 Iowa 612, 89 of the others, named "Green Line" cars^
N. W. 88. over its own road without breakage of

10. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Halsell, 80 bulk; each road, desirous of making a
S. W. 140, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 126, judg- through rate thereby, was to ascertam
nient affirmed in 83 S. W. 15, 98 Tex. 244. the rates the intermediate road or roads

11. Who is the initial carrier. — Savan- charged, and, adding the same to its own
nah, etc., R. Co. v. Commercial Guano rates, fix its own schedule of through
Co., 103 Ga. 590, 30 S. E. 555. rates, the same to be termed "Green Line

12. Mode of determining validity of Rates." There was no joint expense or
traffic agreement. — Stewart :'. Erie, etc., loss or profit, except that where a loss.
Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372, Gil. 348. could not be located on any particular

13. Right to enter into arrangements road, a pro rata share of the loss was
with one carrier and refuse to do so with borne by all that carried the freight,
others.— Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. West Held, that no partnership was created
Coast Xaval Stores Co., 198 U. S. 483, thereby. Irvin v. Nashville, etc., R. Co.,
49 L. Ed. 1135, 25 S. Ct. 745; Button r. 92 111. 103, 34 Am. Rep. 116.

Strong (U. S.). 1 Black 23, 17 L. Ed. 29. Where there was an arrangement be-

14. Contract not to receive goods des- tween different connecting railroads
tined to point beyond line. — Seasongood whereby each road was to carry the cars
V. Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co., 54 S. W. of the other having the name "Green
193, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142, 49 L. R. A. 270. Line" painted thereon, the fact that a

15. Agreements not creating a partner- v/harfboat belonging to one of such roads
ship. — A mere traffic agreement between had the words "Green Line" painted
railroad companies providing for a pro- thereon did not indicate a partnership _be-
portionate division of freight charges tween the roads, or a joint responsibility,
does not constitute a partnership. Post Irvin v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 92 111. 103,
V. Southern R. Co., 52 S. W. 301. 103 34 Am. Rep. 116.

Tenn. 184, 55 L. R. A. 481. Agreement not creating a partnership

Each of several companies, having con- or agency.— A traffic agreement between




§§ 3601-3613. Transportation beyond Carrier's Line— § 3601.
Duty to Receive and Transport. — A carrier has no right to refuse to receive
freight because it is destined to a point beyond its own Hne; it being its duty to
carry the freight to the end of its line, and there deliver it to a connecting carrier,
to be forwarded.^*'' It must receive and forward articles on the usual terms. ^"

two railroad companies which confers a
license on the one to use the track of
the other, and limits their right to make
certain charges for freight and passen-
gers, does not constitute a partnership
between them, or make the one road the
agent of the other. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.
z\ Xeel, 56 Ark. 279, 19 S. W. 963.

Contract to interchange business upon
certain terms. — Where a railroad com-
pany, for value, contracted with another
railroad company to "interchange busi-
ness, both through and local," with the
latter and its connecting lines, for a spec-
ified term, "upon terms as favorable, to"
the latter "and its connecting lines as
those given to any other railroad enter-
ing" a designated city, it was bound
thereby, not only as to freights shipped
from or to points upon its own line, but
also as to freights destined to or coming
from points beyond the same, and hence
could not, so long as it pursued a differ-
ent and more favorable course as to other
roads entering said city, enter into con-
tracts or maintain business relations with
transportation companies beyond its own
line, with the intention of depriving the
road with which it contracted of the ben-
efits of the contract, nor with such inten-
tion refuse to receive from the transpor-
tation companies shipments of freight
routed over said road on bills of lading
giving it the benefits of "through rates
and through proportions of rates" on such
shipments. Seaboard, etc., R. Co. v.
Western, etc., R. Co., 97 Ga. 289, 23 S. E.

Arrangement not raising implication of
an agreement to carry beyond terminus.
— Xo arrangement I)etwecn a dispatch
company undertaking to forward goods
and sundry carriers of merchandise whose
lines terminate at a given point, whereby
the latter separately agree to carry all
j?o/?ds for transportation of which the for-
mer shall contract at established tariflf
rates arranged by the carriers, will raise
an implication of an agreement to carry
beyond the terminus of their respective
routes. St. Louis Ins. Co. 7'. St. l^ouis,
etc.. R. (•-,.. 10 J IJ. S. 116, :.'6 L. Vj\. 67;).

Agreement and usage not making car-
rier liable beyond end of its line. —De-
fendants, a joint-stock cor|)oration, or-
ganized to conduct the business of a
comnion carrier l)y water, contracted with
a railroad company to run their boats
daily, so as to connect with certain train."?,
and that through freight received for
transportation f)ver llie lines of botli com-
I .-.ii.^ ,l,,.i.!,| I.,, carried at reducerl rates;

that the receipts should be divided be-
tween them; and that the railroad com-
pany should build a wharf, where both
companies could transact their business.
Held, that the liability of defendants for
goods shipped for transportation as
through freight ceased at the end of its
line, though there was a usage between
the companies, known to the owner of
the goods, that, in such cases, a single
bill for the amount of the freight between
the extreme terminal points should be
made out by defendants and collected
and receipted by the agent of the railroad
company on delivery of the goods. Con-
verse V. Norwich, etc., Transp. Co., 33
Conn. 166.

A contract binding each of two stage
companies to operate its own part of
Ime, contemplates that such operation
shall reasonably accommodate passengers
throughout the whole line. Compton v.
Western Stage Co., 25 Tex. Supp. 67.

Contract as to charges limited as to
time. — Where a railroad company agreed
Vi'ith a connecting line to ship iron over
the two roads during the summer and
autumn at a fixed rate, and the first com-
pany contracted with the consignor for
such shipment, with no limit as to time,
it can not recover from the connecting
line for additional freight charged by it
on shipments made after the time lim-
ited by the contract between the roads.
Georgia R.. etc., Co. v. Smith, 83 Ga.
626, 10 S. E. 235.

Contract not relieving parties thereto
from individual responsibility for mis-
takes of employees. — Wlicre several rail-
road companies are operating parts of a
continuous line for their joint benefit,
each for itself as well as for the others,
as carriers of freight, under a contract
providing that what they do for each
other is to be done under the contract,
and not as agents or servants, each com-
pany is responsiI)le for the mistakes of
its own employees in billing consign-
ments of freight. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
r. Foulks, 92 III. App. 391, judgment af-
lirmed in 191 111. 57, 60 N. E. 890.

16. Duty to receive freight and deliver
it to connecting carrier. — Seasongood v.
Tennessee, etc., Transp. Co., .54 S. W.
193, 21 Ky. L. Kep. 1142, 49 L. R. .'\.
270. See post, "Duty to Deliver to or
Notify Succeeding Carrier," § 3606.

17. Articles must be received and for-
warded on usual terms. Marcpiette, etc..
I-!. Co. 7'. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, 7 N.
\V. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 453.

§§ 3601-3602 CARRIERS. 3250

And where a carrier receives goods for a point beyond its line, a failure to carry
to the end of its line and deUver or offer to deliver to the next carrier is not ex-
cused merely by the fact that there is a block of freights on the next carrier's line
and no room for the goods in the initial carrier's depot at the end of its line,
which facts were known to its agent at the time of the reception of such goods. ^'^
At common law a carrier can only be compelled to receive and carry goods to the
end of its line,^^ and is not bound to issue a bill of lading for transportation be-
yond its terminus.^'* A statute which prescribes a penalty for the refusal of a
railroad company to receive and transport to any point on its own line cars con-
taining freight offered to it by a connecting road of the same guage, does not re-
quire such company to issue through bills of lading to points on a connecting line,
and to deliver its own cars containing freight to such connecting line.-^ The
fact that a company has issued through bills of lading to shippers at a certain
point gives no right to shippers at another point to demand that they be likewise
issued to them. 22 Where goods are tendered for shipment to a point beyond the
initial carrier's line, and there are several routes equally safe, prompt, reliable,
and cheap, such carrier can not be compelled to accept the goods to be carried
over one route in preference to another, at the shipper's option, unless some rea-
son appears therefor ; especially where the use of one route may be advantageous
to the carrier, without injury or sacrifice to the shipper.^s But the carrier's right
to select the route for through shipments does not extend to the selection of in-
solvent lines, or uncertain or unreliable agencies. ^-^ An initial carrier can not be
compelled to make a through shipment to a point beyond its line over a particular
route, merely to enable the shipper or consignee to get a rebate under a secret
agreement with a certain line.-^ The fact that an initial carrier contracts for the
shipment and delivery of goods beyond its own terminus to a designated point
and issues bills of lading accordingly, when the same are routed over a particular
one of its connecting lines, does not show an unjust discrimination against an-
other connecting line because such initial carrier refuses to issue through bills of
lading for the shipment over the latter line of goods consigned to the same point
of destination. 26

§§ 3602-3605. Contracts for Through Transportation. — As to special
contracts as affecting liability for loss of or injury to goods or live stock, see post,
"Loss of or Injury to Goods or Live Stock," §§ 3635-3672.

18. Facts not excusing carrier from See, also, State v. Wrightsville, etc., R.
duty to receive and deliver. — McLaren v. Co., 104 Ga. 437, 30 S. E. 891.
Detroit, etc., R. Co., 23 Wis. 138. And there is no law which confers upon

19. Carrier only compelled to receive the railroad commission of that state the
and carry to end of line. — ]Myrick v. Mich- power to compel a railroad company to
igan Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. make a contract for the shipment of
Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425; Coles v. Central goods beyond the terminus of its own
R., etc., Co., 86 Ga. 251, 12 S. E. 749; line or to issue a through bill of lading
Coats V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 239 III. binding such company so to do. State v.
154, 87 N. E. 929; Post v. Southern R. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co., 104 Ga. 437, 30
Co., 103 Tenn. 184, 203, 52 S. W. 301, 55 S. E. 891.

L. R. A. 481. 21. Coles V. Central R., etc., Co., 86

20. Not bound to issue bill of lading Ga. 251, 12 S. E. 749, so holding as to
for transportation beyond terminus. — the Act of Sept. 28, 1883 (Acts 1882,
Lotspeich v. Central R., etc., Co., 73 Ala. 83, p. 145).

306; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Shomo, 90 22. Coles v. Central R., etc., Co., 86

Ga. 496, 16 S. E. 220; Central, etc., R. Co. Ga. 351, 12 S. E. 749.

V. Murphey, 116 Ga. 863, 43 S. E. 265. 23. Carrier not compelled to make

A railroad company is not compelled through shipment over a particular route.

under the Georgia statutes to make a — Post v. Southern R. Co., 52 S. W. 301,

contract to forward goods beyond its own 103 Tenn. 184, 55 L. R. A. 481.

line. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Murphey, 24. Post v. Southern R. Co.. 103 Tenn.

116 Ga. 863, 43 S. E. 265; Central R., etc., 184, 52 S. W. 301, 55 L. R. A. 481.

Co. V. Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 91 Ga. 25. Post v. Southern R. Co., 52 S. W.

389, 17 S. E. 904; Rome R. Co. v. Sul- 301, 103 Tenn. 184, 55 L. R. A. 481.

livan, etc., Co., 25 Ga. 228; Coles v. Cen- 26. State v. Wrightsville, etc., R. Co.,

tral R., etc., Co., 86 Ga. 251, 12 S. E. 749. 104 Ga. 437, 30 S. E. 891.




§ 3602. In General. — Whether a railroad company is bound to carry or
transport goods to a point of destination beyond the terminus of its road depends
upon the contract between the parties. This contract may be expressed or im-
plied, but it is always necessary to ascertain what the contract is. 2"

§ 3603. Power to Contract. — In the absence of statutory or charter dis-
ability, a common carrier may contract for the safe carriage and delivery of prop-
erty at a destination beyond its own line,-** and renders itself liable for loss,
injury, or delay on the line of another carrier, over which a part of the transpor-
tation is performed ; -'■^ and wdiere such a contract is not, on its face, necessarily
beyond the scope of the powers of the corporation, it will, in the absence of proof
to the contrary, be presumed to be valid. ^"* Such a contract may be made by a
general agent of the company.^i A local agent is presumed not to have authority
to make such a contract, but his authority to do so is susceptible of proof. 2- A

27. Duty to carry beyond terminus de-
pends upon contract. — Savannah, etc., R.
Co. f. Collins, 77 Ga. 376, 3 S. E. 416.

28. Power to contract. — United States.
—Railway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258,
24 L. Ed. 693; Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22
Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827, 49 How. Prac.
84; Myrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107
U. S. 102, 1 S. Ct. 425, 27 L. Ed. 325;
Green Bay, etc., R. Co. v. Union Steam-
boat Co., 107 U. S. 98, 2 S. Ct. 221, 27 L.
Ed. 413.

Indiana. — Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Wood-
ward, 164 Ind. 360, 72 N. E. 558, 73 N.
E. 810.

AVw York. — Swift v. Pacific Mail
Steamship Co., 106 N. Y. 206, 12 N. E.

Pcnnsxlvania. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Eerry, 68 Pa. 272.

Tennessee. — Western, etc., Railroad v.
McElwee, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 208.

Texas. — Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Hill,
f.3 Tex. 381, 51 Am. Rep. 642.

A carrier may so contract to carry to
some point beyond the end of its route
as to be liable for delivery at such point.
Schwartz v. Panama R. Co., 155 Cal. 742,
103 Pac. 196.

Carriers may issue through bills of lad-
ing and make contracts for through ship-

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 27 of 214)