Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 34 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 34 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

72. Negligence causing unreasonable
delay. — Johnson z'. East Tennessee, etc.,
R. Co., 90 Ga. 810, 17 S. E. 121; Cohen v.
Southern Exp. Co., 53 Ga. 128. See, also,
East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson,
85 Ga'. 497, 11 S. E. 809.

Plaintifif contracted with a railroad for
the shipment of cattle by way of a con-
nectine carrier to a station on a third
railroad, and the shipping railroad is-
sued a waybill which stated that the
freight money for the entire distance had
been paid. The agent of the connecting
carrier was notified of such fact, but,
in delivering the cattle to the third rail-
road, stated that the freight was unjiaid,
by reason of which such latter railroad
refused to deliver the cattle till the
freight was paid, till informed some time
later of the mistake by the shipping rail-
road. Held, that such action of the
connecting carrier's agent was negligence
making such carrier liable for damages
arising from the delay in the delivery.
.Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Dilworth (Tex.
Civ. App.), 05 S. W. 502, judgment af-
firmed in r,7 S. W. 88, 95 Tex. 327.

In an action agaiiT^t a railroad com-
pany for delay in delivering a shipment,
defendant daimcfl that the delay was
caused by the mistake of the connecting
carrier wlio delivered the shipment to it,
and that such carrier was the owner's
agent in flelivering the goods. It ap-
peared that fiefemhmt's negligence con-
tributed to, if it was not the sole cause
of, the delay. Held tlial tlie defendant
was Ualile. Sherman v. Hudi^on, etc., R.
•"o., 04 X. Y. 254. alTirming 5 Daly 521.

73. Johnson v. East Tennessee, etc., R.
Co., 90 Ga. HIO, 17 S. E. 121.

74. Goods destroyed by cold by rea-
son of unreasonable delay. — Michigan
Cent. R. Co. v. Curtis, 80 111. 324.

75. ^Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Curtis, 80
111. 324.

76. Last carrier not liable, in absence
of contract for delay occurring on other
lines. — Where the initial carrier in its
bill of lading issued to plaintiffs under-
took to transport goods to their destin-
ation without any mention of connecting
lines, in an action for damages caused
by delay against the last carrier, which
was not a party to the contract, it is er-
ror to instruct that if defendant was one
of the connecting lines over which the
goods were shipped it would be liable
for unreasonable delay, whether such de-
lay occurred on its own line or not.
East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. r. Johnson,
85 Ga. 497, 11 S. E. 809.

Last carrier, in absence of joint inter-
est, not liable for delay of a preceding
carrier. — In absence nf proof of a part-
nersliip or otiier joint interest existing
lietwecn two connecting carriers, the final
carrier if itself witliout fault is not li-
able for delay on the line of the initial
carrier. Missouri, etc., R. Co. 7'. Stark
Grain Co., 103 Tex. 542, 131 S. W. 410,
modifying judgment 120 S. W. 1140.

Where a carrier gives a bill of lading
undertaking to ship freight to a station
named, whicli is beyond the terminus of
its line, and makes no mention of the
carrier on whose line the station is lo-
cated, wliicli latter has no privity or
contractnal relation with the initial car-
rier, so far as appears and no connection
witli the sliipment until delivered to it
1)V an intenncdiritc line, it is error to

§§ 3631-3634 carriers. 3282

§ 3631. Liability of Second Carrier to First Carrier for Delay in Re-
ceiving Goods. — A shipowner can not recover from a connecting carrier dam-
ages caused by the hitter's refusal for some days to receive the ship's cargo,
where it is not aheged that such delay was tortious or inexcusable.'^"

§ 3632. Insufficient Excuses for Delay. — A railroad company receiving
cattle from another carrier, though received on Sunday, for transportation over
its road, is bound to forward the stock without unnecessary delay.''' ^ Where a
railroad company receives goods from a connecting road, to be transported to
the owners, it can not justify their detention on the ground that, by its regula-
tions, goods so received are not to be forwarded until the receipt of a bill of
back charges, and that no such bill accompanied the goods.''-*

§ 3633. Effect of Traffic Arrangements between Carriers. — Where
two railroad corporations enter into a traffic arrangement, and associate them-
selves as a "fast freight line," and a shipper contracts with the general agent
of such associated line for the shipment of freight over the line, the companies
aie jointly liable under the contract for damages resulting from delay in the
transportation of the freight irrespective of the portion of the line on which
such delay occurs. ^*^ Where connecting railroads hold themselves out of the
public as a through line for the transportation of freight, and the initial carrier
so acts for itself and for the others by receiving a shipment which it agrees to
carry to its destination, guarantying the through freight, and providing for cer-
tain terms in behalf of other carriers, which it designates as "a part of the
through line," the contract is that of the initial carrier, and it is liable for any
default of its connecting lines in not delivering the shipment in a reasonable

§§ 3634-3672. Loss of or Injury to Cars, Goods, or Live Stock —
§ 3634. Loss of or Injury to Cars. — Railroad companies in transporting,
for hire and under their exclusive control, the cars of other companies or per-
sons, are liable as common carriers, for their safety, in the absence of a special
contract to the contrary.'''- But in such case, after the transporting carrier has

charge that if the delivering carrier is 77. Liability of second carrier to first

one of the connecting lines over which carrier for delay in receiving goods.—

the goods are to be shipped, it will be Freeman c\ Louisville, etc., R. Co., 33

liable for unreasonable delay in the de- Fla. 420, 13 So. S92.

livery of the shipment, whether such 78. Cattle received on Sunday must be

delay occurs on its line or not. East forwarded without unnecessary delay.—

Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Johnson, 85 Ga. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Lehman, 56

497. n S. E. 809. Md. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 415.

Railroad company not liable for delay 79. Regulations providing for detention
caused by dispatch companies' agent. — of goods until receipt of a bill of back
Defendant, as intermediate carrier, con- charges. — Dunham t'. Boston, etc., R.
tracted to haul to the seacoast cotton Co., 70 Me. 164, 35 Am. Rep. 314; Mich-
shipped with certain dispatch companies aels z'. New York Cent. R. Co., 30 N. Y.
under a through bill of lading. It was 564, 86 Am. Dec. 415.

defendant's custom, on arrival of cotton 80. Effect of traffic arrangements be-
at the coast, to give notice to the dis- tween carriers. — Rocky Mount Mills v.
patch companies' agent, named in the Wihnington, etc., R. Co., 25 S. E. 854,
waybill as consignee, whose duty it was 119 N. C. 693, 56 Am. St. Rep. 682.
to obtain a permit from the steamship 81. Cummins r. Dayton, etc., R. Co.
company for delivery thereto, and deliver find.), 9 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 36.
the permit to defendant, on receipt of 82. Liability of railroad companies in
which defendant would deliver the cot- transporting cars of other companies. — II-
ton on lighters to the proper vessel. On linois. — Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago,
arrival of the cotton, defendant gave etc., R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605,
prompt notice to the agent, and urged 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506; Peoria, etc.,
him to obtain the permit, which he failed R. Co. v. United States Rolling Stock
to do. Held, that defendant was not li- Co., 136 111. 643, 27 X. E. 59, 29 Am. St.
able to the shipper for delay in delivery. Rep. 348.
Whitworth r. Erie R. Co., 87 N. Y. 413. /va;;,yfl.y.— Missouri Pac. R. Co. v.



§ 3634

delivered the cars to the consignee and they are no longer in its control, its lia-
bility ceases. ^^ Where railroad cars containing freight are shipped over a con-
necting line of railroad to a certain point, to be delivered to the consignee of
the goods to be unloaded, after which the carrier is again to take the cars to
its yards for storage and keep them there until called for, the liability of the
carrier as an insurer of the cars will be suspended during the time of such stop-
page, during which it has no control of the cars, and will not again attach until
after the cars have been unloaded and made ready for removal to the place of
storage. ■^■* A carrier which undertakes to haul another carrier's car over its

Wichita Wholesale Grocery Co., 5.5 Kan.
525. 40 Pac. 899, 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas..
X. S., 560.

Massachusetts. — Vermont, etc., R. Co. v.
Fitchburg- R. Co., 14 Allen 462. 92 Am.
Dec. 785.

Xcw York. — Lansberg v. Dinsmore, 4
Daly 490; Mallory v. Tioga R. Co., 39
Barb. 488.

If a railroad company take a car for
transportation over their road, and,
though it remain on its own trucks, take
sole possession and care of it, they are
responsible as common carriers. New
Jersey R., etc., Co. z: Pennsylvania R.
Co., 27 X. J. L. 100.

In Peoria, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 109 111. 135, 50 Am. Rep. 605, 18
Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 506, it appeared
that defendant company's principal busi-
ness was switching cars for other rail-
road companies; that its tracks were
connected with those of such other rail-
roads by a transfer switch, and with
mills, elevators and manufactories in and
around the city where its business was
transacted; that the plaintiff company
brought a car, loaded with freight, to
the cily, and placed the same on the
transfer track, with orders to defendant
to ship the same to a certain distillery.
to which place it was taken and unloaded;
that when unloaded it was taken by de-
fendant, without orders from plaintiff, to
a sugar refinery, to be loaded, and then
switched to the transfer track for ship-
rnent; and that on the same day such re-
finery was burned, and also the car. It
was held, that defendant was liable as a
common carrier to plaintiff for the value
of the car.

A railroad company by special contract
with another and connecting railroad
company agreed to draw over its own
railroad the cars of the latter company
■with their pa>scngcrs and freight, for a
certain specified compensation; and the
latter roinpany agreed to save the trans-
porting company harmless from all
claims and damages arising from any in-
jury to jiasscngcrs, or loss of or damage
tci bagcage, goods and freight, while in
transit over the same, unless such in-
jury, loss or damage should be clearly
shown to arise from the negligence or
d'-iaulf of the transporting company, or
from some defect in its rf)ad. in wliicli

4 Car— 12

case the claims, damages and loss were
CO be borne by the transporting com-
pany. Certain cars so received 'and
drawn under this contract were injured
while in transit m consequence of a de-
fect in the railroad track of the trans-
porting company, which defect was
caused without the company's fault.
Held, that the transporting company
were liable to the other company there-
for, either upon the contract, or else as
common carriers. Vermont, etc., R. Co.
z: Fitchburg R. Co. (Mass.), 14 Allen
462. 92 Am. Dec. 785.

Locomotive — Plaintiff's fireman and
engineer under control of defendant's
conductor.— In Terre Haute, etc., R. Co.
V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 111. 502, 37
N. E. 915, it appeared that a railroad
company undertook to transport a loco-
motive of the plaintiff company to a cer-
tain point over its road; that the locomo-
tive was placed on defendant's road in
charge of its conductor, and a fireman
and engine driver of plaintiff operated
such engine under the control of such
conductor, their duties being merely me-
chanical and they having no authority
to say when the engine should start or
at what station it would be sidetracked
to allow trains of defendant to pass. It
was held, that if the engine ^yas injured
while being so transported, through the
negligence of the defendant's conductor,
defendant was liable.

83. Liability ceases upon delivery of
cars to consignee.— A railroad delivered
certain of its cars loaded with coal to
defendant, a connecting company, to be
by it delivered to the consignee, and the
cars to be returned to plaintiff. De-
fendant delivered the cars to the con-
signee, who took charge of them, and
placed them on a private switch in its
yard. On the day of the deliver}', and
before tlic ^ars were unloaded, and be-
fore they were redelivered to defendant,
they were accidentally destroyed by fire.
Held, that defendant was not liable, as
the cars were out of its control. East
St. Louis Connecting R. Co. 7'. Wabash,
etc., R. Co.. 123 111. 594, 15 \. E. 45, re-
versing 2 1 III. App. 279.

84. Liability of carrier as insured sus-
pended during stoppage for unloading. —
I'eoria. etc., R. Co. r. United States Roll-
ing Stock Co.. 136 111. 643, 27 N. E. 59,
29 .\m. St. Re]). 348.

§§ 3634-3635



irack is liable for damages to the car caused by its derailment owing to the car
being of a narrower gauge than the track, as the condition of the car could have
been discovered by inspection before the carrier received it.^^ A terminal car-
rier is a bailee of cars of other railroads in its possession, which have been un-
loaded, while being held for reloading, and not a common carrier, and therefore
not liable for their destruction by fire without negligence. •^''

§§ 3635-3672. Loss of or Injury to Goods or Live Stock— § 3635.

In General. — In the absence of a stipulation restricting its liability, any car-
rier, on whose line loss or injury to property transported by it occurs, is respon-
sible to the owner therefor.''''' Thus, where goods are shipped to be transported
by several successive carriers, the carrier in whose possession they are when
destroyed or injured is liable, as such, to the owner or consignee, for the loss.^'^
But a carrier is not liable beyond its own line, unless by contract it undertakes
an extended liability,^'* or unless such a liability is imposed by statute.'"^ Thus,

85. Damages caused by car being of
narrower gauge than track. — Xcw Jersey
R.. etc., Co. V. Pennsylvania R. Co., 27
N. J. L. 100.

86. Liability for destruction of un-
loaded cars being held for reloading. —
Central, etc., R. Co. r. Milledgeville R.
Co., 75 S. E. 614, 13S Ga. 434.

87. Carrier liable for loss or injury oc-
curring on its line. — St. Louis, etc., R.
Co. V. Kilberry, 83 Ark. 87, 102 S. W.
894. See, also, Texas, etc., R. Co. t.
Warner, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 280, 93 S. W.
489, affirmed in 101 Tex. 6G4.

88. Packard v. Taylor, etc., Co., 35 Ark.
402, 37 Am. Rep. 37; International, etc.,
R. Co. V. Tisdale, 74 Tex. 8, 11 S. W.
900, 4 L. R. A. 545; Conkey v. Milwaukee,
etc.; R. Co., 31 Wis. 619, 11 Am. Rep. 630.

89. Carrier not liable beyond its own
line. — United States. — Stewart v. Terre
Haute, etc., R. Co., 3 Fed. 768, 1 Mc-
Crary 312.

Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., Mail Co. v.
Levey & Co., 11 Ky. L. Rep. 286; Louis-
ville, etc., R. Co. V. Crozier, 13 Ky. L.
Rep. 175; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Cooper, 13 Kv. L. Rep. 496; Cincinnati,
etc., R. Co. V. Greening, 100 S. W. 825,
30 Ky. L. Rep. 1180; Baltimore, etc., R.
Co. V. Clift, 142 Ky. 573, 134 S. W. 917.

Maz«^.— Skinner v. Hall, 60 Me. 477.

A carrier is not liable for injuries to
goods unless they occurred while_ in its
care and control. Reason z: Detroit, etc.,
R. Co., 150 Mich. 50, 113 N. W. 596.

One railroad is not responsible for
loss occurring on another; and it was
not error to so charge, where it was
doubtful from the evidence whether
goods, for the loss of which suit was
brought, were ever received by the road
sued. McCaffrey & Co. v. Georgia South-
ern Railroad, 69 Ga. 622.

In an action against one or several
carriers for injuries to live stock, none
of them will be responsible for damages
occurring beyond the end of the lines
controlled by them in the absence of a
special contract. Illinois Cent. R. Co. r.

Curry, 106 S. W. 294, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 513.

Before the enactment of Act June 29,
1906, c. 3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 595 (U. S.
Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1166), and
Code Ala. 1907, § 5546, in effect making
the initial carrier responsible for any loss
or injury caused by any carriei- to which
the property is delivered, or over whose
line it passes, each of several connect-
ing carriers was responsible only for loss
occurring 'on its own line. Central, etc.,
R. Co. v. Chicago Varnish Co., 169 Ala.
287, 53 So. 832.

80. Statutes construed.— The Georgia
.■statute. Civ. Code 1895, § 2317, provid-
ing that when freight that has been
shipped to be conveyed by two or more
common carriers to its destination, where,
under the contract of shipment or by
law, the responsibilit}' of either shall
cease on delivery to the next "in good
order," has been lost, damaged, or de-
stroyed, it shall be the duty of the initial
or any connecting carrier, on a-pplica-
tion by the shipper, to trace such freight
and inform the applicant where, how and
by which carrier the same was lost, dam-
aged, or destroyed, and § 2318, making a
carrier which shall fail to comply with
section 2317 liable for the value of the
freight are by the express terms of § 2317
applicable only where, under the con-
tract of shipment or by law, the respon-
sibility of each carrier is to cease on de-
livery to the next carrier "in good or-
der," and are inapplicable where the
responsibility does not so cease. Atlan-
tic, etc., R. Co. V. Henderson, 61 S. E.
1111. 131 Ga. 75.

The South Carolina statute, 24 St. at
Large, p. 81, § 2, providing for the recov-
ery of loss or damage to freight, does
not impose on one connecting carrier lia-
bility for the default of another, unless
such carrier obtains and gives informa-
tion, or uses due diligence, as provided
by Civ. Code 1902, § 1710, by furnishing
information as to when the loss or dam-
age occurred. Venning v. Atlantic, etc.,
R. Co., 58 S. E. 983, 78 S. C. 42, 12 L. R.
\., K. S., 1217.



§ 3635

where parts of a continuous line of transportation are owned by different car-
riers, between whom no connection exists, in the absence of a special contract
each is liable only for injuries occurring on its portion of the line.*'^ A carrier
is not liable for damages to merchandise occurring after delivery thereof to the
next carrier in the regular course of transportation to the place of destination.^-
But where goods are injured after delivery to a carrier, and before they are
delivered to a connecting carrier, or after they are received back from the con-
necting carrier on a return to the point of shipment, it is liable.'^^ Where goods
are carried over connecting lines to destination and there refused by the con-
signee, and the shipper in writing appoints a company operating one of the lines
his agent to return the goods to him and agrees to save harmless from any suit
or damage arising therefrom, it does not imply a verbal contract on the part of
such carrier to transport over all connecting lines so as to render it liable for
loss of the goods on the return, without its fault, and not on its own road.^*

Carrier's Negligence Resulting in Damage after Delivery to Another
Carrier.- — .\ carrier is liable for damage to goods resulting from its negligence,
though the damage may not actually occur until after the goods are delivered
to a connecting carrier. ^^

Injury to Goods Held for Payment of Freights Advanced to Connect-
ing Lines. — A carrier is not liable for injury occurring without its negligence
or fault to goods held by it for payment of freights advanced to connecting
lines. ^'^

91. Each of connecting carriers only
liable for injuries occurring on its portion
of line. — Alontgomery, etc., R. Co. v.
Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Bissel x: Piice, 16
111. 408; Hunt v. New York, etc., R. Co.
(N. Y.), 1 Hilt. 228.

The rule as to transportation by con-
necting lines of railroads is that each
coinpany is only bound, in the absence
of a special contract, to carry safely
over its own route, and deliver safely to
the next carrier. Myrick v. Michigan
Cent. R. Co., 107 U. S. 103, 1 S. Ct. 425,
27 L. Ed. 325.

A connecting carrier is not liable for
a loss not occurring on its portion of
the through route, unless it stands in the
relation of principal and agent, or partner,
or some similar relation to the defaulting
carrier. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. f. Stock
& Sons. 51 S. E. 161, 104 Va. 97.

When goods are shipped for transpor-
tation over several connecting railroads,
each of which is owned by a separate
company, each company is, under the
laws of Georgia, responsible only to its
own terminus and until delivery to the
connecting road. I)augh r. McDaniel. 42
Ga. 641.

Where goods arc shipped without any
other direction than that they shall l)c
forwarded by a particular line, and that
line is made up of several connecting
lines, the liability of each carrier is lim-
ited to his own possession of the goods
as a means of transjjortation. Jacobs z'.
Hooker (X. Y.), 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 472.

Where, in an action against a carrier
for loss of freight, the undisputed evi-
dence showed that the goods were de-
livered to the carrier, and that the loss

occurred while in its possession, the lia-
bility of a connecting carrier was not in-
volved, and the validity of Act May 13,
1903_ (24 St. at Large, p. 1), defining con-
necting carriers, and fixing their liabili-
ties, was not in issue. De Lorme v. At-
lantic, etc., R. Co., 60 S. E. 440, 79 S. C.

92. Carrier not liable for damages oc-
curring after delivery to next carrier. —
Gray v. Jackson & Co., 51 N. H. 9, 12
Am. Rep. 1; Mullarkey v. P. W. & B. R.
Co. (Pa.), 9 Phila. 114.

93. Carrier liable for injury to goods
while in its possession and control. —
Reason t'. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 113 N. W.
596, 150 Alich. 50.

94. No implication of contract impos-
ing liability for loss on another line. —
Erie R. Co. z'. Cappcl, 80 O. St. 128, 88
N. E. 144, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 1)45.

95. Carrier's negligence resulting in
damage after delivery to another carrier.
— Whitiiack :•. Cliicago, etc.. R. Co., 82
Ncl). 464, 118 N. W. 67, 19 L. R. A.. N.
S., 101.

Where a carrier separated two cars of
potatoes while they were in transit, so
tiiat the caretaker was prevented from
attending to one of the cars and the po-
tatoes therein were frozen, the carrier
was liable, notwithstanding the potatoes
may not have frozen unlil after they were
delivered to a connect ing carrier. WMiit-
iiack 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 82 Neb. 464,
ns N. W. 67. 19 1,. \i. A.. N. S., loi.

96. Injury to goods held for payment
of freights advanced to connecting lines.
— Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Murrali, 85 Ga.
343, 11 S. E. 779.

§§ 3635-3636



Carrier Assuming Responsibility of Tracing- Shipment. — A carrier who
on demand of the shipper has accepted and assumed the responsibihty of tracing
the shipment and reporting deHvery if made, so that the shipper might enforce
payment of the consignee, can not thereafter claim that its responsibihty in that
respect terminated on dehvery to a connecting carrier/^'^

What Law Governs. — Where one of several connecting carriers, who have
formed a joint arrangement for a continuous line, receives goods in one state
to be transported over the entire line, and the goods are lost by an intermediate
carrier in another state, the rights of the parties will be governed by the laws
of the latter state.''*

§§ 3636-3645. Liability of Initial Carrier— § 3636. For Loss or In-
jury on Its Own Line or before Delivery to Succeeding Carrier. — When
goods are delivered to a common carrier to be transported beyond its own line,
the carrier is subject to the same liability, for loss or damage sustained by them
while on its own road, as where goods are received for transportation entirely
over its own route, and this common-law liability remains until it has delivered
the goods for transportation to the next carrier."^ The initial carrier's liability
as an insurer of freight does not terminate, nor that of the next carrier begin,
so long as there remains something to be done by the initial carrier before the
entire control of the freight is relincjuished to such next carrier.^ Where a

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 34 of 214)