Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 28 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 28 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ments or interchange of freight between
each other. Graham v. Macon, etc., R.
Co., 49 S. E. 75, 120 Ga. 757.

A railroad company may make a valid
contract of transportation extending be-
yond the limits of their own road,
whether as carriers or as forwarders.
Fatman & Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co.,
2 Disn. 248, 13 O. Dec. 152; Cincinnati,
ttc, K. Co. V. Pontius, 19 O. St. 221, 2
Am. Rep. 391; Steamboat Jonas Powell
V. Thompson, 16 O. St. 98; Stevens v.
Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 20 O. C. C. 41,
11 O. C. D. 168.

A railrrjad company chartered l)y and
having its termini within the state of
Ohio has the power to corUract to ship
goods l»y all rail to .\'ew York; the power
to enter into such contract not being de-
rived from its charter, but as incidental

4 Car— 10



to its charter duties. Harshman v. Lit-
tle Miami R. Co. (O.), Dayton 171.

The Rome Railroad Company had a
right under the powers granted in its
charter to contract to deliver produce at
a point which could be reached only by
passing it over connecting roads. Rome
R. Co. V. Sullivan, etc., Co., 25 Ga. 228.

Plaintiff delivered to defendant, a for-
\varder, certain goods to be forwarded to
S., to an express company, by them to
be delivered to M. on receipt from M.
of $64.75. Held, such a contract was not
beyond the scope of a forwarder's ordi-
nary business. Hutchings v. Ladd, 16
Mich. 493.

29. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Woodward,
164 Ind. 360, 72 N. E. 558, 73 N. E. 810.

A railroad corporation possessed of
the powers given to railroad corpora-
tions generally and subject to corre-
sponding liabilities, such railroad corpo-
rations, for example, as those incorpo-
rated under the general railroad law of
New York, may subject themselves by
special contract to liability over the whole
course of transit. Railroad Co. v. Pratt
(U. S.), 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827, 49
How. Prac. S4.

30. Presumption of validity of contract.
— Kailway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258,
24 L. Ed. 69:?.

31. Powers of agents. — Northern Pac.
R. Co. 7'. American Trading Co., 195 U.
S. 439, 25 S. Ct. 84, 49 L. Ed. 269. (Gen-
eral eastern agent of Northern Pacific
Railroad Company held to have such
])owcr. )

32. .Mc.Manus v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.
(Iowa), 136 X. W. 769.

\ local freight agent of a railroad
company ordinarily has no autiiority to
l)ind tile conii)any to carry Irt-ight I)c-
y<jnd its line, unless it is sliown that the
com])any lias engaged in the lousiness of
carrying freight l)eyond its line. Gulf,
etc., R. Co. 7'. Jackson, 99 Tex. 343, 89 S.
W. 9(iH. reversing 86 S. \V. 47, distin-
guislied in St. Louis, etc., R. Co. ;'. I'lO-
shcar, 102 'J'cx. 76, 113 S. \V. 6.



;§ 3603-3604



CARRIERS.



3252



railroad company in the hands of, and ]:)eing operated by, receivers, may, by its
proper agents, contract for through carriage, and such contract will be binding
upon the receivers. ^^ It seems that a drayman may, by contract, undertake with
a shipper to become liable for the safe transportation of goods over the lines of
railroads to the point to which the goods are destined.'^"*

§ 3604. What Constitutes a Contract for Through Transportation. — A

special contract by a common carrier, making it liable for loss of goods on a con-
necting line, may be shown by the recitals in the receipt for the goods, and the
manner in which the way list is made up, and also from the facts that a through
freight is charged, and that the connecting carriers have a contract with each other
by which to carry freight through for a single price, to be divided between them.^*
But a special agreement for through carriage will not be inferred from doubtful
expressions or loose language, but only from clear and satisfactory evidence.'''*
If a carrier undertakes, for a specified compensation, to transport over its own
route, and to deliver at the terminus thereof, goods marked to a consignee be-
yond such terminus, a through contract will not be implied from the fact that
in the description of the goods in the contract the marks showing the ultimate
destination are given. ^" A receipt which simply shows that goods were re-
ceived by the carrier in good order, indicates the consignees and the destination,
without showing any undertaking by the carrier to ship the goods to the point
of destination, can not be construed to be a contract for the through ship-
ment of the freight.-'^ The peculiar provisions of a number of contracts be-
tween carriers and shippers have been construed by the courts to determine
whether they constitute contracts for through transportation.-''-'



33. Railroad company in hands of re-
ceivers. — Xorthern Pac. R. Co. v. Amer-
ican Trading Co.. 195 U. S. 439, "25 S. Ct.
84, 49 L. Ed. 269.

"Under the modern methods of fore-
closing railroad mortgages, it has been
the custom to appoint receivers to take
charge and conduct the business of the
railroad mortgagor, during the pendency
of the suit. The possession of such re-
ceivers frequently last for years. It
■would be in the highest degree disad-
vantageous to all interested in the rail-
road company, as well as to the public
having occasion to do business with it,
if the same power which the company
possessed to make special contracts for
transportation should not be given to and
exercised by the receivers of the com-
pany in continuing to run that road in
substance as a going concern, so far as
these kinds of contracts are concerned.
Such contracts are not of the character
spoken of by Mr. Justice Jackson in Chi-
cago Deposit Vault Co. v. McNuUa. 153
U. S. 554, 38 L. Ed. 819, 14 S. Ct. 915, as
to extraordinary or unusual as nbt to
be included in the authority to carry on
the business of the company. On the
contrary, this contract is one of that
class which we regard as so included."
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. American Trad-
ing Co., 195 U. S. 439, 25 S. Ct. 84, 49 L.
Ed. 269.

34. Drayman. — Savannah, etc., R. Co.
V. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590,
30 S. E. 555.

35. How special contract for through
transportation may be shown. — Berg v.



Xarragansett Steamship Co. (N. Y.), 5
Daly 394.

36. Agreement for through carriage in-
ferred only from clear and satisfactory
evidence. — Pennsvlvania R. Co. v. Jones,
155 U. S. 333, 39 L. Ed. 176, 15 S. Ct.
136; INIyrick v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 107
U. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct. 425; Rail-
road Co. V. Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall. 123,
22 L. Ed. 827, 49 How. Prac. 84; Roy v.
Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 61 W. Va. 616,
57 S. E. 39, 31 L. R. A., N. S., 1.

A carrier may bind himself to trans-
port goods beyond his own route, and
thus laecome responsible for the default
of those he employ's to carry the remain-
der of the distance, but the proof of the
contract should be clear, especially when
it would contradict the papers accom-
panving the transa'ction. Pennsylvania
R. Co. V. Berry, 68 Pa. 272.

37. Marks showing ultimate destina-
tion given in description of goods in con-
tract. — Babcock v. Lake Shore, etc., R.
Co., 49 N. Y. 491.

38. Receipt held not a contract for
through shipment. — Savannah, etc., R,
Co. V. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga.
590. 30 S. E. 555.

39. Contract for through carriage. — In
an action against a carrier to recover
for the loss of plaintiff's horses by fire
while on the line of a connecting carrier,
it was claimed that defendant only con-
tracted for carriage to the end of its line,
but it appeared that plaintiff had, for a
Dumlier of years, made like contracts
with defendant, on which stock had been
carried through to the destination; that



3253



RIGHTS, DUTIES AND LIABILITIES.



§ 3604



Agreement to Transport to Point beyond Line and Receipt of Freight

Charges. — An agreement by a carrier to transport goods to a point beyond its



the contract in question recited that the
stock was received for shipment to the
point of final destination, and the charges
fixed by defendant were for through car-
riage. Held sufficient to show a contract
of through carriage. Ogdensburg, etc.,
R. Co. v. Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall. 123, 22
L. Ed. 827, 49 How. Prac. 84.

Bill of lading a contract for through
shipment. — A bill of lading acknowledg-
ing receipt of goods from a shipper to be
transported by the receiving carrier !o
the end of its line, and thence by con-
necting lines to Louisville, Ky., is, con-
struing it most strongly against the car-
rier, a contract for through shipment by
the initial carrier, the connecting line be-
ing merely its agent to carry out the un-
dertaking. Ireland i'. Mobile, etc., R. Co.,
49 S. W. 188, 453, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1586,
105 Ky. 400.

A bill of lading acknowledged the re-
ceipt of cotton "which said carrier agrees
to carry to said destination, if on its
own road, or othervvise, to deliver to an-
other carrier on the route to said des-
tination,"' stipulated for an integral sum,
a special price, for the service of trans-
portation to the ultimate destination of
• the cotton, which was beyond the car-
rier's own route and known to be so
when it issued the bill of lading, and
also stipulated that it signed the bill for
the different earners who might engage
in the transportation, each of which was
to be bound by and have the benefits of
the provisions thereof. Held, that the
stipulation "which said carrier agrees to
carry lo said destination," etc., must be
considered in connection with the other
stipulations of the bill, and that, when
so considered, the bill was a through
contract of carriage so as to make inap-
plicable the Georgia statute. Civ. Code
1895, § 2317, requiring a carrier, on ap-
plication, to trace freight where, under
tlie contract of shipment or by law, the
rcsijonsil)ility of each connecting carrier
shall cease on delivery to the next "in
"ood order." .'\tlantic, etc., R. Co. v.
icnderson, 01 S. E. 1111, 131 Ga. 75.

.\ railway company, whose southern
terminus was Chicago, 111., received flour
at its depot at Xcenah, Wis., directed to
the care of J. II. & Co., Xew York, and
of C. S. T., general agent, Chicago, and
gave the following bill of lading: "Chi-
cago. Jan. Ifi. i,sr;2. Received (as agents
and ffjrwarders) from E. VV. P. the fol-
lowing packages: * * * 0„e hundred
barrels llf)ur. * * * Contract from
Neeiiah t<j New York at $l.:i5 jur barrel.
J. II. S., Agent." The wr)rds in italics
were written, and the rest printed. lielri,
that the roiitrad was to deliver the flr.ur
■■■■ New ^■ork for a fixed cf>nipensaliiin,



and the company was liable as a com-
mon carrier ror the whole route. Peet
V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 19 Wis. 118.

A bill of lading entitled, "Through
Freight Contract," was issued by defend-
ant carrier in receipt for goods deliv-
ered to it, addressed to a city beyond the
terminus of its road. The bill recited
that defendant promised "to transport
over the line of this railway to the com-
pany's freight station at its terminus,
and deliver to the consignee or owner,
or to such company (if the same are to
be forwarded beyond the limits of this
railway) whose line may be considered
a part of the route to the place of des-
tination of said goods, it being dis-
tinctly understood that the responsibility
of this compan}'- as a common carriei
shall cease at the station where svtch
goods are delivered to such persons or
carrier;'' and, further, that "the respon-
sibilitj' of this company as a common
carrier, under this bill of lading, to com-
mence on the removal of the goods
from the depot on the cars of the com-
pany, and to terminate when unloaded
from the cars at the place of delivery."
There was evidence that freight received
under such circumstances was shipped to
its destination in the cars in which it was
packed. Held, that defendant's liability
as a common carrier extended beyond
the limits of its own road. Toledo, etc.,
R. Co. f. :\IerriiTian, 5fj 111. 123, 4 Am.
Rep. 590.

Bill of lading held to be a contract for
through transportation to a point be-
3'ond the carrier's line. Evansville, etc.,
R. Co. V. Androscoggin Mills (U. S.), 22
Wall. 594, 22 L. Ed. <24.

Contract prima facie a through con-
tract. — A railroad company having re-
ceived goods for shipment, consigned to
a point beyond its terminus, and having
fixed by contract with the consignor the
rate of freight for the whole distance,
;i|«]iortioning a part of the same amongst
tliree carriers, itself included, to an in-
termediate point beyond its terminus,
and assessing the lialance for the trans-
j.ortation beyond that ])oint, the contract
was. i)rima facie, a "through contract,"
and l)Ound the initial company for per-
formance to the ])oint of destination,
'i'his was so notwitlistanding the named
rate was made subject to change wilhtMU
notice. the effect being to limit I lie
ai.;ree<l sju-cial rate to the particular ship-
nuiits with reference to which the rate
was established, but not to allow any
ciiange, either ab)ng or at the terminus
of the route whicli would alTect these
sliipinenls. .Atlanta, etc., R. Co. 7'. Texas
Grate Co., M G.i. (Hi:.', 9 ,^. I'., doo.

A special agreement by a carrier to



§ 3604



CARRIERS.



3254



line, and the receipt by it of the freight charges for the whole distance, constitute
a contract for through shipment to such point, for the performance of which the



transport a through shipment by the
vessel of a connecting carrier sailing on
a designated date results from the ac-
ceptance of a through rate for a ship-
ment "to be forwarded" via such steamer,
which rate was quoted with notice that
it was of vital importance that the ship-
ment should be transported promptly,
and should go forward by the earliest
possible steamer without delay, in order
to enable the shipper to fulfill a pro-
posed agreement which it was about to
make for the sale of the goods at the
final destination, and which would re-
quire delivery there at a fixed date. De-
cree, Farmer's Loan, etc., Co. v. North-
ern Pac. R. Co., 120 Fed. 873, 57 C. C.
A. 533, affirmed in Northern Pac. R. Co.
V. American Trading Co., 25 S. Ct. 84,
195 U. S. 439, 49 L. Ed. 269.

Contract only binding carrier to carry
goods to its own terminus. — A railroad
companj' receiving goods, and signing a
bill of lading therefor, stating that they
are "to be transported to the terminus of
its road, and there delivered to agents"
of connecting roads, and that in case of
loss or damage, the company shall be
held answerable therefor in whose cus-
tody the goods may be at the happen-
ing thereof, is bound to carry them to
the terminus of its own road only, and
is not liable for damage thereto, while
they are in the hands of other com-
panies. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Pon-
tius, ]9 O. St. 221, 2 Am. Rep. 391.

Facts not evidencing contract for
through transportation. — Tn an action
against a railroad corporation, to recover
for the loss of goods, directed to a place
situated beyond the line of their road,
neither a receipt given by the corporation
stating that the goods were received
for transportation, nor an advertisement
by such corporation of the general facil-
ities of transportation, is evidence of a
special contract to carry such goods to
the place to which they were directed,
but only to deliver them at the end of
said road, thence to be forwarded in the
usual course of business. Elmore v. Nau-
gatuck R. Co., 23 Conn. 457, 63 Am. Dec.
143.

In an action against a common carrier
to recover for the loss of goods occur-
ring beyond the terminus of its road, the
plaintiff gave in evidence the defendant's
charter, containing permission to make
lawful contracts with other carriers; also
an advertisement stating that freight
would be billed through by the defend-
ants, and evidence that the plaintiff had
been in the practice of sending freight
to the same place over the defendant's
road from the time it went into opera-
tion; and that the defendants had made



no demands of the plaintiff for the
freight. Held, that the evidence did not
show a through contract. Naugatuck R.
Co. V. Waterbury Button Co., 24 Conn.
468.

The fact that a' company doing busi-
ness as common carriers between partic-
ular points have intrusted blank envel-
opes, having their name printed upon
them, to a customer, for convenience in
sending money, does not enable him to
charge them as common carriers for
losses beyond their route, by addressing
the envelope containing money to a
place beyond the end of the route, and
delivering it to them to be transmitted.
So held when the receipt given by the
carriers for the package expressly ex-
cluded liability beyond the terminus. Pen-
dergast v. Adams Exp. Co., 101 Mass.
120.

Agent of a railroad company received
goods for transportation to a point be-
yond its terminus, and gave therefor a
bill of lading: "Received from L., to be
laden on the freight cars, 1 bale bedding,
T. F. Phillips, Monroe, La., marks," etc.,
"as per margin (condition of contents

unknown), to or assigns, at

station," signed by the agent of defend-
ant. At the time of receiving, the agent
said to the shipper that the goods would
reach Monroe in good condition, and in
a few days, etc. Held, that these facts
were not evidence of a special contract
on the part of the company to convey
the goods to the point of destination, and
deliver them to plaintiff there, inaking it
liable for loss by a connecting carrier.
Phillips V. North Carolina R. Co., 78 N.
C. 294.

In an action against a railroad company
to recover the value of merchandise
shipped, but not delivered, it was shown
that plaintiff called upon the local agent
of the defendant for information as to
shipping rates, etc., and was instructed
by the agent how to mark the goods and
where to deliver them; that 18 days aft-
erwards plaintiff caused the merchandise
to be marked and delivered at the depot.
The carman delivered the goods, and re-
ceived a bill of lading containing a provi-
sion that no connecting carrier should be
held liable for any loss or damage to the
goods, except such as occurred on its
own route. It was shown that merchan-
dise was delivered by defendant at a
point of connection to a steamboat line,
to be carried to the point of destination.
Held that, as there was no through con-
tract established, the defendant was not
liable. Ricketts t'. Baltimore, etc., R.
Co., 59 N. Y. 637, affirming 61 Barb. 18,
4 Lans. 446.



3255



RIGHTS, DUTIES AND LIABILITIES.



3604



carrier is responsible.-*'^ So a bill of lading, receipting for the full freight for
carrying between two points, is a contract to carry between those points, making
the first carrier liable for nondelivery of the goods by the last carrier.-*^

Agreement for Delivery within Certain Time for Through Rates.— A
contract for carriage over connecting lines may be inferred, where the initial car-
rier agrees for a certain rate to deliver at the end of the route of the connecting
carrier within a certain time."*-

Receipt or Bill of Lading Stating Goods Are to Be Delivered at Point
beyond Terminus. — \\here a railroad company gives a receipt for goods, or a
bill of lading, stating that the goods are to be delivered at a point beyond its
terminus, it constitutes a contract to carry to such point. "^^



40. Agreement to transport to point be-
yond line and receipt of freight charges.
— When a common carrier gives the
shipper a bill of lading which states
that the goods received are to be trans-
ported by itself and connecting carriers
to a certain point beyond the terminus
of its line and there delivered to a par-
ticular person, and the shipper at the
same time pays such carrier, or agrees
with it to pa3% the freight charges for
the whole route, this constitutes a con-
tract for the through shipment, for the
performance of which, bej'^ond as well
as to the terminus of its own line, the
contracting carrier is responsible. Cen-
tral R., etc., Co. v. Hasselkus, 91 Ga. 382,
17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St. Rep. 37.

A contract by the initial carrier to
carry freight to its usual place of de-
livery at destination if on its road, other-
wise to deliver to another carrier on the
route to the destination, binds the initial
carrier to carry bej^ond its own line and
deliver the goods, and, where its under-
takes to transport to the destination and
receives pay for the whole distance, the
liability attaching on it to deliver con-
tinues throughout the whole transit, and
connecting carriers are its agents in car-
rying out the contract. Pittsburg, etc.,
R. Co. i: Mitchell, 175 Ind. 196, 91 N.
E. 735.

Where defendant accepted a car load
of fruit for transportation, and gave a
receipt, stating it was consigned to a des-
ignated point, and containing the figures
"G2.20," the point named being beyond the
defendant's line, and there was evidence
that the "02.20" was the freight for the
entire distance, and was prorated among
all the connecting companies, it consti-
tuted a through contract of shipment,
making defendant liable for delay in
transportation of the goods by the con-
necting currier. Central R., etc., Co. v.
Georgia Fruit, etc., Exch., 01 Ga. :tBO, 17
S. E. ',(04.

41. Bill of lading receipting for full
freight. -I'.altininrc, etc., Steamboat Co.
• '. I'.iDwii, .", } I 'a. 77.

42. Special agreement for through ship-
ment and rates and delivery at certain
time. — Northirii I'ac. R. Co. v. Ami-rican
Trading Co.. ]'.tr, U. S. 430, 49 L. I<:<1.
269, 2r> S. Ct. 84.



43. Receipt or bill of lading stating
goods are to be delivered at point be-
yond terminus. — Bryan z: Memphis, etc.,
R. Co. (Ky.), 11 Bush 597; Kyle v. Lau-
rens R. Co. (S. C), 10 Rich. L. 382, 70
Am. Dec. 231.

A bill of lading recited that the goods
were to be delivered as addressed on the
margin, or to his consignees, upon pay-
ing freight and charges as noted below.
On the margin was written, "G. F. W.,
Providence, R. I., care A. T. Co., Buffalo.
* * * Rate to Providence, per 100 bis.,
45 cents." Held that, in the absence of
any stipulation limiting the carrier's lia-
bility to its own route, the instrument
must be construed as a contract to carry
the goods through to Providence, and
making it liable for loss occuring be-
yond the terminus of its line. Wahl v.
Holt, 26 Wis. 703.

By the terms of a bill of lading goods
shipped at Milwaukee by defendant rail-
road company were receipted for as fol-
lows: "Shipped by R. P. & Co. the fol-
lowing articles, in good order, to be de-
livered in like good order, as addressed,
without unnecessarj' delay." "Consigned
to H. & K., Onekama, Mich." (Signed
b}' defendant's agent.) Held, that this
was a contract to carry the goods to
Onekama, there being nothing in the in-
strument limiting defendant's liability to
its own route, and makes the initial car-
rier liable for goods destroyed in the
hands of a succeeding carrier. Hansen
z'. Flint, etc., R. Co., 73 Wis. 346, 41 N.
W. 529, 9 Am. St. Rep. 791.

A railroad company received a box for
transportation, addressed to a place be-
yond the terminus of their road, and
gave a receipt for it, describing it by the
address, and saying: "Wiiich the com-
pany promise to forward by its railroad,

and deliver to , at its depot in

The receipt was a printed form,



with blanks apparently intended to be
filled so as to restrict the duty of the
company to a transportation to some
place on tiieir road, but in this case the
receipt was given without filling tin-
iilanks. Held, tliat it tliereforc operated
as a contract to carry to the place named
in the address, and would make them lia-
ble for a lo^s occurring beyond the tcr-



§ 3604



CARRIERS.



3256



Contract to Deliver to Connecting- Carrier at Most Convenient Point. —

A common carrier, on performing a contract "to deliver to the connecting express,
stage, or other means of conveyance, at the most convenient point," becomes re-
sponsible as a forwarder only.'*"*

Agreement to "Forward" Goods to Place on Connecting Line. — An
agreement by a carrier to "forward" goods to a place on the line of a connecting
carrier does not ordinarily obligate the carrier to carry the goods to such place,
but its obligation is complied with when it delivers them to the connecting car-
rier.-*^ But the rule is otherwise when, from the whole contract, it appears that
the word "forward" was used in the sense of "carry. "^''



minus of their line. Cutts v. Brainard,
42 Vt. .'OG, 1 Am. Rep. .S5P..

Receipt not containing implied agree-



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 28 of 214)