Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 30 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 30 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

without ])rei)ayment of charges, agrees that no demand for charges will be made
before the point of destination is reached ; and an intermediate carrier, by re-
ceiving the freight under the contract, impliedly makes the same representation,
and both carriers are bound to see that no damages result to the shipper from a
demand for prepayment of charges made by a third carrier.*^"

Duty to Unload, Feed and Water Live Stock, — Where a railroad com-
pany undertakes to transport live stock to a point beyond its own line, on the
line of another company, and on arrival of the train at the junction it is found
that they can not be forwarded immediately, and that they need to be unloaded,
fed, and watered, the duty of the initial carrier to see that this is done can not
be imposed on the owner ; and this, although he is accompanying the stock un-
der a contract that he shall take care of them while in transit.*'':*

Liability for Failure to Deliver at Point of Destination. — Where a rail-
road company accepts goods marked to a destination beyond the terminus of its
road, it is liable for failure to deliver at that point, unless there was a contrary
custom or usage known to the shipper at the time the goods were shipped."*'

Liability for Misdelivery. ^ — If a carrier makes itself responsible by contract
to transport freight beyond the terminus of its own route, or if an agreement to
do so can be fairly inferred from the bill of lading, it will be liable for a misde-
livery of the goods by another carrier, to whom it has delivered them to be car-
ried to their ultimate destination."^*'

Liability for Delivery without Presentation of Bill of Lading. — Where
the terms of a contract for the shi])ment of goods by a railroad company, to a
point not upon the line of its road, specify that the property shall not be delivered
except upon a bill of lading, the delivery of the goods by such company to one of
its connecting lines, to be forwarded, accompanied by the necessary information
regarding the delivery, relieves the company of any liability for its delivery
without the presentation of the bill of lading."^

Liability for Overcharge. — Where a railroad company quotes to a shipper
a freight rate to a point beyond its line, and by mistake the rate quoted is less
than the usual rate, and such mistake causes the shipper to change his status to
his injury, the company will be liable for the overcharge paid by the shipper.'''-
A through billing contract for the transportation of cattle, exempting the car-
rier from liability "for anything beyond" its line, "excepting to protect the
through rate of freight named therein," does not make the initial carrier liable
for conversion, on the refusal of a connecting line to deliver the cattle, except on
payment of a greater rate of freight."^^

67. /'Acceptance of goods for through A railroad quoted to a shipper a rate
transportat'On without prepayment of on ,£?rain from Nebraska to Colorado,
charges.— I'.ird r. Soul hern K. Co., ^2 S. but l:)y mistake the rate quoted was less
W. 4.'j1, <M) Tcnn. 719, o:; .'\m. St. Rep. than the usual rate. The shipper, rely-
■'^■"ifi. ing thereon, sold grain to parties in Col-

68. Duty to unload, feed and water orado, basing the price on such freight
live stock. — Dunn ?•. Ifannilial, etc., R. rate; the purchasers to pay such freiglit
Co., GM Mo. 2'is. on its delivery, and the shipper guaran-

69. Liability for failure to deliver at tying that the rate should not exceed
point of destination.- Mulligan r. illi- t'''-" o"t.' quoted. The grain was shipped
nois Cent. R. Co.. :i*; Towa IHl. 14 .Am. ^" the i)urchasers in Colorado. 'I'he last
Kcp. .Ill carrier, before it would deliver the grain,

70. Liability for misdelivcry.-Cly.Ie ;■. *;""MH;lle'l the purchasers to pay a Ingher
Th'bbard sm I'l ;".^ freight rate tlian that (|uote(l. I lie

_, ^' '■ .'"' ■ . . shii)per then i)ai(I to the purchasers tiiis

u-n r . 1'^'"'^ ,'^'!^°"* presentation of t-xcessive freight. 1 Ul.l, lliat the railway

bill of lading.— kukerson KoUer-.Mill Co. ,-(,mi)any was liable for the overcharge

z'. f.ran.l Kajjids. etc., R. Co., 07 Mich. ,,;,id by the shipper. Missouri Pac. R.

no. .;4 .\. \\. '.i(\<K (J,, ^, Crowcll Lund)er, etc.. Co., 70 N.

72. Liability for overcharge. — Missouri VV. <J(\i, .11 Xeb. :.".):{.

Pac. k. C<». r. Crowell Lumber, etc., Co., 73. Little Rock, etc., R. Co. ?■. Odom.

51 Neb. 293, 70 N. W. W\. CI .\rk. .t'ifi, W S. VV. XV.).

§§ 3605-3606



No Liability for Live Stock Loaded at Point beyond Terminus. — Where
a carrier contracted to ship hve stock beyond its own Hne on a connecting Hne,
it is not hable to the consignor for stock loaded at a point beyond its terminus,
and for which the consignor accepted a bill of lading from the carrier operating
the road at such placeJ"^

That Connecting Carrier Will Not Receive Goods Will Not Excuse
Performance of Contract. ^ — WHiere a railroad company by special contract,
agrees to deliver goods at a particular place on the line of a connecting carrier,
it is not excused from performing the contract by the fact that the connecting
carrier will not receive the goods from it because of a lack of cars in which to
forward themJ^

§§ 3606-3612. Delivery to Succeeding Carrier— § 3606. Duty to
Deliver to or Notify Succeeding Carrier. — As between connecting carriers,
the duty of the one ill" possession at the end of its route is to deliver the goods
to the succeeding carrier or notify it of their arrival, and until this is done, the
former remains liable as common carrier.'^ The duty to deliver to the connecting

74. No liability for live stock loaded at
point beyond terminus.— Hartley v. St.
Louis, etc., R. Co., 115 Iowa G12, 89 N.
W. 88.

75. That connecting carrier will not
receive goods will not excuse perform-
ance of contract. — East Tennessee, etc.,
R. Co. V. Nelson, 41 Tenn. (1 Coldw.)

76. Duty to deliver to or notify suc-
ceeding carrier. — United States. — Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 4G L.
Ed. 358, 22 S. Ct. 253; Texas, etc., R. Co.
V. Callender, 183 U. S. 632, 46 L. Ed. 362,
22 S. Ct. 257; Myrick v. Michigan Cent.
R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S.
Ct. 425; Railroad Co. z>. Manufacturing
Co., 16 Wall. 318, 21 L. Ed. 297; Railroad
Co. V. Pratt. 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827,
49 How. Prac. 84.

Minnesota. — Wehman v. Minneapolis,
etc., R. Co., 58 Minn. 22, 59 N. W. 546.

Nezv York.— MiUs v. Michigan Cent.
R. Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Rep. 152.

li the road of the company connects
with other roads, and goods are received
for transportation beyond the termina-
tion of its own line, there is superadded
to its duty as a common carrier that of
forwarded by the connecting line — that
is, to deliver safely the goods to the next
carrier on the route beyond. Texas, etc.,
R. Co. z'. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 46 L. Ed.
358, 22 S. Ct. 253; Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Callender, 183 U. S. 632, 46 L. Ed. 362,
22 ,S. Ct. 257; Myrick V. Michigan Cent.
R. Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S.
Ct. 425; Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing
Co. (U. S.), 16 Wall. 318, 21 L. Ed. 297;
Seasongood v. Tennessee, etc., Transp.
Co., 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1142, 54 vS. W. 193,
49 L. R. A. 270; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. Rep.
18, 97 S. W. 778; Fremont, etc., R. Co.
z.'. Waters, 50 Neb. 592, 70 N. W. 225;
Dunson v. New York Cent. R. Co. (N.
Y.), 3 Lans. 265.

It is the duty of the carrier, in the ab-

sence of any special contract, to carry
safely to the end of his line, and to de-
liver to the next carrier in the route be-
yond. Railroad Co. v. Pratt (U. S.), 22
Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. "827, 49 How. Prac.

A carrier who has received goods for
transportation over his line, and which
are then to be delivered to another car-
rier for transportation, can not relieve
himself of the common-law liability of
insurer until he has actually delivered
them to such other carrier. Illinois Cent.
R. Co. V. Mitchell, 68 111. 471, 18 Am.
Rep. 564.

One carrier of a connecting line which
has finished its part of the transporta-
tion by carrying the goods to the termi-
inus of its line, is still bound to turn it
over to the next carrier or to take care
of it a reasonable time for the purpose
of so turning it over. Union Dray Line
Co. V. Hurt, 30 Ga. 798.

An initial carrier must give notice to
connecting lines of the arrival of cattle
at the terminus of its line for transship-
ment over the connecting line. Louis-
ville, etc., R. Co. V. Bourne, 16 Ky. L.
Rep. 825, 29 S. W. 975.

A railroad company which accepted a
shipment, to be forwarded beyond its
terminus, must, in order to devest its
liability as carrier, either deliver the
goods to the succeeding carrier, or give
him notice that they are ready for de-
livery, and afford a reasonable time to
remove them, and, in the event of their
nonremoval, provide storage or do some
act indicating a renunciation of relation
of carrier. Mills v. Michigan Cent. R.
Co., 45 N. Y. 622, 6 Am. Rep. 152.

Where goods shipped must pass through
the hands of several intermediate car-
riers before arriving at the place of their
destination, the duty of each is to deliver
them safely, at the end of his route, to
tlie next carrier on the route beyond;
and until he has made this delivery, ei-



§ 3606

carrier is in some states enforced by express statutory enactment.' ' Where a
railroad company transports horses beyond its own Hne, it assumes the duty
of delivering them at the terminus if its road to the connecting carrier in a car
suitable to transport them to their final destination.'^'^

When Delivery to Succeeding Carrier Not Required.— Where the line
of the succeeding carrier is not connected with the road of the initial carrier
for the purpose of shipping freight, and there is no agent at the junction of
the two roads, whose business it is to receive and forward freight, there is no
obligation upon the initial carrier to deliver freight received by it to such suc-
ceeding carrier."^ » Where a railroad company has, by building stock yards, or
by contract with a stock yards company, made adequate provision for the dis-
charge of its duty as a common carrier with respect to live stock shipped over
its line to a city, it is not required by the common law to make delivery of stock
consigned to such city to connecting roads for delivery at other stock yards

Effect of Requiring of Shipper an Advance Deposit Equal to Freight
Charges for Entire Distance,— Wliere a railroad, receiving goods marked to
a place beyond its terminus, requires of the shipper an advance deposit equal to
the amount to be earned by the several carriers over the entire distance, it is
bound to so deliver the goods in the possession of the carrier connecting with it
as_ to place the latter under the same obligation as if the goods had been re-
ceived from the consignor with advance payment of freight.^!

ther actually or by notice to the next
carrier or to the owner or consignee of
their arrival, and a reasonable opportu-
nity afterwards to remove them, he will
be held liable for damages in case of their
loss or injury. McDonald v. Western
R. Corp., 34 X. Y. 497.

77. The Georgia act of 1874 as amended
by_ the acts of 1882-83, p. 145, which re-
quires that the railroad company shall,
at_ its terminus or any intermediate
point, switch off and deliver to a con-
necting road having the same gauge, all
cars passing over the line of the former
or any portion of the same containing
goods or freights consigned to any point
over or beyond such connecting roads,
merely requires that if the initial com-
pany receive cars from another line con-
signed to a point beyond its terminus
it shall deliver them to the connecting
road running to that point, and is not
intended to compel one carrier to furnish
its own cars to another without compen-
sation for their use. The fact that the
initial carrier did, in other instances,
ship cars to its terminal point and thence
over the connecting line, does not af-
fect the ca>e. Therefore, where cotton
was delivered to a railroad company for
shipment to its own terminus and thence
to another point over a connecting line
of the same gauge of track, l)ut the ini-
tial company refused to issue through
bills of lading on full carload lots,
though the shiijpers offercfl to pay com-
inissif>n rates for doing so, and upon
this refusal the shippers took local bills
of lafling to the terminus of the initial
(■omi)any and then notified its agents to
deliver the cotton to the connecting line
.-ill in carload lots, and this not being

done, they were compelled to haul it on
drays_ to the warehouse of the connect-
ing line, there was no liability on the
part of the initial company for damages
or the penalty prescribed in the act of
1874 as amended by the act of 1883.
Coles V. Central R., etc., Co., 86 Ga. 251,
12 S. E. 749.

Under Georgia act of 1874, as incor-
porated in the Code of 1882, § 719(q) et
seq. (Ga. Gode of 1895, § 2212 et seq.),
and the amendatory act of September
28, 1883, requiring railroad companies,
at _ their termini or any intermediate
point, to switch off and deliver to a
connecting road having the same gauge
all cars passing over their lines or any
portion of the same containing goods
or freight consigned to any point" over
or beyond such connecting road, it is
required that a railroad company which
receives cars from another line consigned
to a point beyond its terminus shall de-
liver them to the connecting road
which runs to the point to which the
goods are consigned. Central R., etc.,
Co. v. Skellie, SO Ga. GSG, 12 S. E. 1017.

78. Duty to deliver horses in suitable
car. — bA-Urrt v. Pennsylvania K. Co., (>0
All. 7S1, :.M1 I'a. :.(ir, 107 .Am. <^t. Rop.
.'. 7 I .

79. When delivery to succeeding car-
rier not required. -St. I.ouis, etc., ii.
Co. V. .Mans. (i() .\rk. (t:t7. 31 S. W. 42.

80. Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louis-
ville, etc., k. Co.. lis J.'cd. H3, 55 C. C.
A. 03, 03 L. R. A. 213, allirmed in 24 S.
Ct. 339, 192 U. S. 50S, 48 L. Ed. 505.

81. Effect of requiring of shipper an
advance deposit equal to freight charges
for entire distance. ^I'ldnier ;■. Cliicago,
• tc, R. Co., 50 Conn. 137, 13 .-Xtl. 818.

§§ 3606-3607



Storing Goods in Its Warehouse Will Not Relieve Carrier of Respon-
sibility. — The initial or intermediate earner is not relieved of responsibility by-
unloading the goods at the end of its route and storing them in its warehouse
without delivery or notiee to or any attempt to deliver to its successor,'^- al-
though it has, by contract, exempted itself from liability for property or goods
awaiting further conveyance. ^^^ But it has been held that where the initial car-
rier gives notice to the succeeding carrier to take the goods, and the latter fails
to do so within a reasonable time, the former may place them in a warehouse,
and that from that time his liability is only that of a warehouseman.^-*

§ 3607. Mode and Sufficiency of Delivery.— Goods Must Be Placed
Where Easily Accessible to Succeeding Carrier. — What constitutes a good
deliverv from one carrier to another so as to discharge the former is measured
by what is needful to be done in putting the latter in full possession of the goods,
and no delivery accomplishes this unless it places the goods where they are easily
accessil)le to the latter. ■'-^■"'

Car Placed on Transfer Track of Connecting Carrier. — A carload of
freight is delivered to a connecting carrier when the car is placed on its transfer
track, and it is notified of that fact.^*^ But the better opinion seems to be that

82. Unloading and storing not sufficient
to terminate liability. — United States. —
Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Reiss, 183 U. S.
G21, 40 "L. Ed. 358, 22 S. Ct. 2.53; Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Callender, 183 U. S. 632,
46 L. Ed. 362, 22 S. Ct. 257; Railroad Co.
V. Manufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 318, 21
L. Ed. 297.

loz^'a. — Bancroft & Co. v. Merchants'
Despatch Transp. Co., 47 Iowa 262, 29
Am. Rep. 482.

Michigan. — Condon i'. Marquette, etc.,
R. Co., 55 Mich. 218, 21 N. W. 321, 54
Am. Rep. 367.

Minnesota. — Lawrence v. Winona, etc.,
R. Co., 15 Minn. 390, Gil. 313, 2 Am.
Rep. 130; Wehman v. Minneapolis, etc.,
R. Co., 58 Minn. 22, 59 N. W. 546.

New York. — McDonald v. Western R.
Corp., 34 N. Y. 497.

83. Exemption from liability where
property awaits further conveyance. — It
can not reasonably be said that goods
await further conveyance within the
meaning of a clause in a bill of lading
exempting the initial carrier from liabil-
ity for goods awaiting further convey-
ance the moment they have been un-
loaded from the cars. Property does not
await further conveyance until it has
become the duty of the succeeding car-
rier to take it further, after notification
that it has arrived and awaits delivery
to it. After that time it may be said to
await further conveyance, but up to that
time it awaits the further action of the
railway company. Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 46 L. Ed. 358, 22 S-
Ct. 253.

84. Placing goods in warehouse after
notice to succeeding carrier. — Wood t.
Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 541, 9
Am. Rep. 465.

Defendant railroad company received
cotton from a connecting carrier, to be
transported over its line, and delivered

to a steamship company for further
shipment. Before it was tendered, fire
broke out in two of the cars, and on a
subsequent tender the steamship com-
pany refused to receive it, deeming it in
unsafe condition, and the steamer on which
it was to be shipped sailed without it.
Notice was promptly given to the ship-
per, and instructions asked for, but none
were given. Defendant again ofifered the
cotton to the steamship company to be
taken on a later vessel, but, another fire
having occurred before the time for sail-
ing, the companjr definitely refused to
take it. The owner was again notified,
and, no instructions being received, de-
fendant stored the cotton subject to the
owner's order, having held it over a
month. Defendant was in no way re-
sponsible for the fires nor for the condi-
tion of the cotton. Held, that it had dis-
charged its duty by tendering the cotton
to the connecting carrier, and notifying
the owner of its refusal, and was not re-
quired to put it in condition and again
tender it, but was justified in storing it
to await the owner's orders. Judgment
116 Fed. 235. affirmed in Buston z>. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 119 Fed. 808, 56 C. C. A.

85. Goods must be placed where easily
accessible to succeeding carrier. — ^Uniou
Dray Line Co. z: Hurt, 30 Ga. 798.

86. Delivery complete when car placed
on transfer track and notice given. — AIc-
i\lillan V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 147 Iowa
596, 124 N. W. 1069, 35 R. R. R. 396, 58
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 396.

But in a Georgia case, where the evi-
dence showed a prevailing custom of the
placing of a car by a railroad on the
transfer track in a certain town main-
tained by such company, it was held that
it was not a delivery of the car to the
succeeding carrier under such custom un-
til the car was actually accepted by the



§ 3607

the mere placing of the car on the transfer track without notice does not consti-
tute a dehvery.^'

Delivery at Warehouse Used by Both Carriers in Common. — Where
there is an agreement between two common carriers operating connecting hues
for the carriage of freight over both routes at an agreed price to be divided be-
tween them, and where they have at the point of connection a warehouse used
in common for the transfer of freight from one Hne to the other, the expense of
handhng being paid in common, a dehvery of freight at the warehouse by one
carrier destined to pass over the hne of the other, with notice to the latter of its
arrival and ultimate destination, places it in the possession of the latter, and
imposes upon it the duties and liabilities of a common carrier in reference
thereto. ■"'■'*

Deposit of Goods on Carrier's Wharf or Float. — Deposit of goods by a
carrier on its wharf or float, and notice thereof to the succeeding carrier, accom-
panied by a request to remove the goods, does not constitute a delivery of the"
goods to the succeeding carrier.^-*

Delivery at Place Agreed on. — If there is an agreement between connecting
carriers that [iroperty intended for through transportation may be deposited by
the initial carrier at a particular place without express notice to the succeeding
carrier, such deposit amounts to notice, and is a delivery. ^o

train crew of such carrier, whose duty it
was to carry it to the place to which the
car was destined. Seaboard, etc.. Rail-
way f. I'riedman, 128 Ga. 316, 57 S. E.

87. Necessity of notice. — A railroad
company received goods, which it car-
ried to a certain point, and there placed
the cars on a side track known as the
'"Y," which belonged to a connecting
carrier, but was constructed for and
used by all the railroads terminating
there in transferring freight and turning
engines. While standing there, before
notice had been given to the connecting
carrier, the goods were destroyed by fire.
Several witnesses testified that it was
a custom among the roads to regard such
circumstances as a delivery, but others
testified that the freight was not consid-
ered as delivered until hauled to the
transfer platform of the receiving road,
examined, and checked off and received
by the clerk of such road. Held, that
there was no delivery to the second car-
rier, and the first one was liable. Ken-
tucky, etc., Fire Ins. Co. v. Western, etc.,
R. Co.. r,T Tenn. (8 Baxt. ) 2G8.

In Alabama it has been held tlial if,
by custom or course of dealing between
the receiving and the next connecting
carrier, loaded cars arc switched off by
the former on a side track of the latter's
road, for immediate trans|)ortation, this
amouius to delivery to the latter with-
out further notice, but if they are to re-
main on such side track \intil a wayliill
is furnished, or shijjping directions are
gfiven, there is no delivery to such con-
ncctinji carrier until this is done. .Mt.
VerjuM) Co. V. .Alabama, etc., R. Co., ICi
Ala. 2'M,, K So. (is-.

But in Delaware it has l)e(ii held that
the delivery of cars loaderl with i)eaches

by one railroad company to a connecting
company is complete the moment such
cars, which belong to the first company,
reach the point of connection between
the two companies and the engine is cut
loose from the cars. Truax v. Philadel-
phia, etc., R. Co. (Del.), 3 Houst. 233.

88. Delivery at warehouse used in com-
mon.— ,7itna Ins. Co. V. Wheeler, 49 N.
Y. 61(3, 3 Am. R. Rep. 390, affirming 5
Lans. 480.

89. Deposit of goods on carrier's wharf
or float. — The fact that a railroad com-
pany, which had delivered cotton on a
wharf, to be loaded on a steainer, had
notified the steamship line that the cot-
ton was ready, and asked them to take it
away, did not make the custody of the
railroad company that of a warehouse-
man, instead of a common carrier. Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Clayton, 19 S. Ct. 421, 173
U. S. 348, 43 L. Ed. 72.1, affirming 84 Fed.
30:). 28 C. C. A. 142.

Goods had l)een discharged from the
barge of a North river carrier to his
"float" in the Albany basin, and notice
repeatedly given to the forwarders to
whom they were directed to take them,
when they were destroyed by fire. Held,
that the transfer to the float was not a
delivery, but merely preparatory to de-
livery, and that by the delays the carrier
did not become a depositary, but was re-
spoiisil)le f(^r the loss. Goold ?'. Chapin,
2(1 X. ^■. \ir>'.K T:. Am. Dec. 398.

90. Delivery at place agreed on. — Pratt
r. Grand Trunk U. Co., 9.") U. S. 43, 24
!.. i'.d. 336.

The r;iilroad company and steamboat
comi)any had a covered wharf in com-
mon at their common terminus used both
as a deixit and wharf, and it was the es-
tablished usage for the steamboat rnm-
])any to land goods for tiic r.iilroail on

§ 3607



Delivery on Sunday. — A delivery of the goods by the initial carrier at the
warehouse of the connecting carrier on Sunday discharges the former from lia-
bility, even under a Sunday law prohibiting work on Sunday, except works of

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 30 of 214)