Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 35 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 35 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

carrier is unable to deliver the goods to the next designated carrier, he should
notify the shipper or consignee, and failure to give such notice, if possible,

97. Liability of carrier assuming re-
sponsibility of tracing shipment. — Atlan-
tic, etc., R. Co. V. Schirmer &. Sons, 87
S. C. 309, m S. E. 4:;9.

98. What law governs. — Barter & Co.
V. Wheeler, 49 X. H. 9. G Am. Rep. 4.34.

99. Liability of initial carrier for loss
or injury before delivery to succeeding
carrier. — Railroad Co. v. Manufacturing
Co. (U. S.). 16 Wall. 318, 21 L. Ed. 297;
Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Schumacher, 29
Md. 168, 96 Am. Dec. .510; Dunson %\ New
York Cent. R. Co. (N. Y.). 3 Lans. 265;
Hadd V. United States, etc., Exp. Co., 52
Vt. 335, 3(; Am. Rep. 757. See, also, Bis-
sel V. Price, 16 111. 408.

Where it is the general usage of a rail-
road company, in reference to goods car-
ried by it to its terminus and marked for
points beyond, to transfer them to the
next carrier, and the shipper contracts
with reference to this usage, the company
will be liable as carriers for injury to the
goods received before such transfer was
completed. Hooper v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 27 Wis. 81, 9 Am. Rep. 439.

Where a common carrier conveys
goods over a portion of the route be-
tween the points of shipment and con-
signment, and holds them for delivery to
some connecting carrier, the liability of
the former in respect to such goods does
not thereby cease, but continues until
the latter has had a reasonable time to
take them away. Wood v. MiKvaukee,
etc., R. Co., 27 Wis. 541, 9 Am. Rep. 465.

1. United States. — Pratt v. Grand Trunk
R. Co., 95 U. S. 43, 24 L. Ed. 336; Bos-
worth V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 30 C. C.
A. "41, 87 Eed. 72.

Alabama. — Mt. Vernon Co. v. Alabama,
etc., R. Co., 92 Ala. 296. 8 So. 687; S. C,
84 Ala'. 173, 4 So. 356.

Arkansas. — Hot Springs R. Co. v. Trippe
& Co., 42 Ark. 465, 48 Am. Rep. 65; Ar-
kadelphia Mill. Co. v. Smoker Merchan-
dise Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S. W. 680, 42 R.
R. R. 619, 65 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N.
S., 619.

Connecticut. — Converse v. Norwich, etc ,
Transp. Co., 33 Conn. 166; Palmer v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 56 Conn. 137, 13
Atl. 818.

Illinois. — Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Mitch-
ell, 68 111. 471, 18 Am. Rep. 564.

Massachusetts. — Judson v. Western R.
Corp., 4 Allen 520, 81 Am. Dec. 718.

New York. — ^tna Ins. Co. v. Wheeler,
49 N. Y. 616, 3 Am. R. Rep. 390; Living-
ston V. New York, etc., R. Co., 76 N. Y.
631; Rogers v. Wheeler, 52 N. Y. 262.

Pennsylvania. — Deming v. Norfolk, etc.,
R. Co.," 17 Phila. 540.

Tennessee. — Kentucky, etc.. Fire Ins. Co.
T-. Western, etc., R. Co., 67 Tenn. (8
Baxt.) 268.

WHiere there has been no delivery of
goods by the initial carrier prior to their
destruction by fire, the goods having ar-
rived, but no notification of their arrival
having been given to the succeeding car-
rier, nor possession delivered to the lat-
ter company, and they are still under
the absolute control and in the posses-
sion of the initial carrier and nothing has
been done to terminate its common-law
liability at the time the fire occurs, the
initial carrier is liable. Texas, etc., R.
Co. z'. Reiss, 183 U. S. 621, 46 L. Ed. 358,
22 S. Ct. 253.



§ 3636

renders him liable for any resulting loss.- Where an initial carrier turns a car
containing a shipment of animals over to the connecting carrier, and it is placed
on a transfer track belonging to the initial carrier, but operated and controlled
entirely by a third carrier, being used by it to make transfers from its tracks
to those of the two other carriers, the initial carrier is not liable for injur}^ there
occurring to the animals, on the theory that it occurred to them while in its pos-
session or under its control.^ If the initial carrier merely stores freight in a
warehouse of its own, wdience the other carrier is in the habit of taking it at its
convenience, and the freight while so stored is destroyed, the first carrier, not
the last, is answerable for its value.'* Where goods are in transportation over
several connected roads, operated under a general understanding that goods
reaching the terminus of one road, intended for the next one in the line, may
be deposited in its depot without any formal delivery and acceptance, such de-
posit terminates the liability of the first road ; and if, after such deposit, the
goods are destroyed by the burning of the depot of the second company, the
first company is not liable to the owner for the loss, even though there is no
proof that the goods were taken manually in charge by agents of the second
company. 5 The liability of the initial carrier for loss of or injury to goods be-
fore delivery to the succeeding carrier is sometimes determined by express con-
tract betv.-een such carrier and the owner of the gctods. The peculiar provisions
of certain contracts of this character have been interpreted by the courts.^

2. Carrier's duty to notify shipper or
consignee when unable to deliver.—
Fisher v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 59 Atl. 532,
99 Me. 338, 68 L. R. A. 390, 105 Am. St.
Rep. 2''3.

3. Delivery sufficient to terminate car-
rier's liability. — St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v.
Randle. 107 S. W. 669, 85 Ark. 127.

4. Storage by carrier in its warehouse
insufficient to terminate liability. — Con-
don V. ^Farquette, etc., R. Co., 55 Mich.
218, 21 N. W. 321, 54 Am. Rep. 367; Law-
rence V. Winona, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn.
390, Gil. 313, 2 Am. Rep. 130.

In an action for the loss of goods, it
appeared that defendant received the
goods, consigned to a point on the line
of a connecting carrier whose line and
defendant's formed a continuous line, on
which a joint or through tariff of rates
had been established, and that the goods
were destroyed, while in defendant's
warehouse, before delivery to the con-
necting carrier. Held, that the owner, in
delivering the goods to be carried
through. contemplated a contract of
carriage, and not of storage, and that
the defendant's liabilitj' as a carrier did
not cease until it had delivered the goods
to the connecting carrier, or given it no-
tice of their arrival, and a reasonable
time had elapsed for tlie latter to receive
them. Wehmann v. Minneapolis, etc., R.
Co., 58 Minn. 22, 59 N. W. 546.

Goods destined for S., a place beyond
D., but directed to F. at D., were trans-
ported by the defendant, upon its road,
from R. to D. On the day of their ar-
rival at the latter place, they were called
for l>y the carrier who was to carry them
from D. to S. The defendant, owing to
other engagements of its agent, was not
ready to make the delivery when called

for. and it was mutually agreed, for the
convenience of both parties, that the
goods should remain in defendant's ware-
house, where they were, until the next
morning. During the night the warehouse
took fire. l)y accident, and the goods were
consumed. It was held that the respon-
sibility of defendant as a common carrier
continued until the goods should be ac-
tually delivered to the next carrier. Fen-
ner v. Buffalo, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 46
Barb. 103.

5. Effect of understanding that deposit

of goods in depot terminates liability -

Pratt V. Grand Trunk R. Co., 95 U. S. 43,
24 L. Ed. 336.

6. Contracts construed. — A railroad
corporation contracting to transport flour,
and deliver it "on board" at D.. is liable
as a common carrier for its loss by fire
in their warehouses at D., before final
delivery "on board." Moore v. Michigan
Cent. R. Co., 3 Mich. 23.

Defendant railroad company received
for shipment to Liverpool two car loads
of lumber, and issued its bill of lading,
providing as follows: "This contract is
executed and accomplished, and all lia-
bility thereunder terminated, on the de-
livery of the said property to the steam-
ship, * * * or on the steamship pier
at the said port (Newport News), etc."
It was held that the placing of the lum-
ber on the pier of defendant at such port,
under its own exclusive control and cus-
tody, was not sufHcicnt to relieve it of
its liaT)ility as a common carrier for dam-
ages for the loss of the lumber. Lewis
V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co.. 47 W. Va.
656, 35 S. E. 908. 81 Am. St. Rep. 816.

Where goods had not at the time of a
fire i)assod into the actua'. custody of the
cnniucting carrier and ,hc contract ex-

§§ 3637-3641 carriers. 3288

§ 3637. Liability of a Forwarder. — Where goods are shipped by a for-
warder on the first steamer leaving the port of consignment according to the
custom of the parties, and the vessel on which they are shipped is not unsea-
worthy at the time of her departure, the forwarder is not liable for the loss of
the goods. ""

§ 3638. Liability for Loss Occasioned by Failure to Transmit Con-
signor's Instructions to Succeeding Carrier. — A common carrier is liable
for any loss occasioned by his neglect to transmit to the next carrier en route
the consignor's special instructions as to transportation.'*

§ 3639. Effect of Failure to Give Name of Consignor to Connecting
Carrier. — A common carrier of goods is not required, in transferring goods to
a second carrier, to ship them otherwise than as directed by the shipper, and
wdiere the directions given by the shipper as to the shipment omits to give the
iiame of the consignor, the carrier will be guilty of no negligence because it
fails to give the name of the consignor, upon delivering the goods to the second

§ 3640. Liability for Loss Caused by Delay in Furnishing Cars.— An
initial carrier is liable for the entire loss of goods caused by shrinkage and fall
of market price caused by delay in furnishing cars to receive the shipment. ^^

§§ 3641-3645. Liability for Loss or Injury by the Succeeding or by
a Subsequent Carrier — § 3641. In General. — If there is no partnership or
special business relationship between connecting carriers, a carrier receiving
goods or live stock destined to a point beyond the line of its road, is, in the
absence of a statute or contract imposing a greater liability, bound to carry
them safely only to the end of its line, and there deliver them to the next car-
rier in the route ; and it will not be held liable for the loss of such goods or
live stock or any injury happening to them after such delivery\i^ provided it did

pressly declared that if any carrier was receive them without prepayment of the
liable for their destruction that one alone railroad's charges, and the goods while
should be liable in whose actual custody there were damaged and were lost so
the goods were when destroyed, the ini- far as the consignee was concerned. Held,
tial carrier could not escape responsibil- that the carrier by water was liable, as it
ity by showing that the connecting car- was its duty to have paid the railroad its
rier could, by reasonable diligence, have charges. Lehigh Valley Transp. Co. v.
taken actual custody prior to the fire. In Post Sugar Co., 81 N. E. 819, 228 111. 121,
other words, it could not convert itself affirming judgment 128 111. App. 600.
into a warehouseman by proving that it 7. Liability of a forv/arder. — Fowle v.
had. before the fire, tendered the goods Pitt, 183 Mass. 351, 67 N. E. 343.
to the connecting carrier, and that the 8. Loss occasioned by failure to trans-
latter neglected, although without rea- mit consignor's instructions to succeed-
sonable excuse, to take them into its ac- ing carrier. — Little Miami R. Co. v.
tual custody. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Clay- Washburn, 22 O. St. 324.
ton. 173 U. S. 348, 43 L. Ed. 725, 19 S. As where the letters "N. M. R. R."
Ct. 421. were omitted from a freight waybill, and,
A bill of lading issued by a carrier by although on the package, did not come
water obligated the carrier, in considera- to the notice of the second carrier, and
tion of a certain sum, to carry the goods the goods were lost by going to another
to destination, if on its line, "otherwise than the North Missouri Railroad Com-
to deliver to a connecting carrier," and pany. Little Miami R. Co. v. Washburn,
by another provision of the bill no car- 22 O. St. 324.

rier was to be liable for damage to the 9. Effect of failure to give name of con-
goods "after ready for delivery to the signor to connecting carrier. — Tndianap-
next carrier." The terminal carrier, a olis, etc., R. Co. z'. ^Murray, 72 111. 128.
railroad, the line of which connected 10. Loss caused by delay in furnishing
with the carrier by water, had no agent cars. — Midland Valley R. Co. v. Adkins,
at the place of destination, and hence re- 36 Okla. 15, 127 Pac. 867.
quired prepayment on goods billed to 11. Liability of initial carrier termi-
such point. The carrier by water ten- nates upon safe delivery to succeeding
dered the goods to the railroad at its carrier. — United States. — St. Louis, Ins.
freight depot, but the railroad refused to Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 104 U. S.



§ 3641

146, 20 L. Ed. G79; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co.
■z: Fairbanks & Co.. 90 Fed. 467, 33 C. C.
A. 611; Ogdensburg, etc.. R. Co. z'. Pratt,
22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827. 49 How.
Prac. 84.

Indiana. — Pennsylvania Co. v. Dickson,
67 N. E. 538, 31 Ind. App. 451.

lozi'a. — Hewett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
63 Iowa 611. 19 N. W. 790.

Kansas. — Hoffman v. Union Pac. R. Co.,
5G Pac. 331, 8 Kan. .\pp. 3 79.

Kentucky. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Foster, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 637, Louisville,
etc., R. Co. t: Cooper, 42 S. W. 1134, 19
Ky. L. Rep. 1152; Illinois Cent. R. Co. z^.
Holt, 92 S. W. 540, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 135;
Thomas v. Frankfort, etc., R. Co., 76 S.
W. 1093. 116 Ky. 879, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1051.

Maryland. — Hoffman v. Cumberland Val-
ley R. Co., 37 -Atl. 214, 85 Md. 391.

Michiga)!. — Rickerson Roller-Mill Co. v.
Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co.. 34 N. W. 269,
67 .Mich. 110.

Minnesota. — Ortt v. Minneapolis, etc.,
R. Co.. 36 Minn. 396. 31 N. W. 519.

Xczi' York. — Root v. Great Western R.
Co., 45 N. Y. 524, reversing 2 Lans. 199;
Berg t'. Narragansett Steamship Co., 5
Daly 394.

Oklahoma. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Carlile. 35 Okla. 118. 128 Pac. 690.

Rhode Island. — Knight v. Providence,
etc., R. Co.. 13 R. I. 572, 43 Am. Rep. 46;
Harris r. Grand Trunk R. Co., 15 R. I.
371, 5 Atl. 305.

Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Jackson, 99
Tex. 343, 89 S. W. 968, reversing judg-
ment 86 S. W. 47; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.
Brown, 99 Tex. 349, 89 S. W. 971, re-
versing judgment 86 S. W. 54; Missouri
Pac. R. Co. V. Ryan, 2 Texas App. Civ.
Cas., § 430; Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v.
McAnulty, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 321, 26 S. W.
414; Houston, etc., R. Co. z'. Park, 1
Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 332; Hunter v.
Southern Pac. R. Co., 76 Tex. 195, 13 S.
W. 190.

rerniont. — Hadd v. United States, etc.,
Exp. Co., 52 Vt. 335, 36 Am. Rep. 757.

i'irfiinia. — McConnell v. Norfolk, etc., R.
Co.. 86 Va. 248, 9 S. E. 1006.

In the absence of a special contract,
a common carrier is only liable for the
extent of his own route, and for the safe
storage and delivery to the next carrier.
Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Schumaclier,
29 Md. 168, 06 Am. Dec. 510.

Where freight is delivered by tlie ini-
tial carrier in good condition and wiih-
out unreasonable delay to a connecting
carrier for shipment to destination, the
liability of the initial carrier on account
of the shipment ceases. S(nUhern R. Co.
V. Vaughn, 38 So. .'iOO, 86 Miss. 307.

A carrier who has no business con-
nection with another line, l)ut receives
Roods to be carried l)eyonfl its own line,
receiving j)ay only for tr.msportation
over its <iwn route, is not, in the ab-
sence of special contract, liable fr)r loss

occurring beyond its own line. Law-
rence V. Winona, etc., R. Co., 15 Minn.
390, Gil. 313, 2 Am. Rep. 130.

A railroad company receiving goods
consigned to a point on the line of a
connecting carrier under an agreement
to transport them to the terminus of its
own road is neither at common law nor
by statute answerable therefor after their
safe delivery to the connecting line
named in the contract of shipment. Fre-
mont, etc., R. Co. V. Waters, 70 N. W.
225, 50 Neb. 592.

A contract obligating a carrier to de-
liver goods beyond its own lines may be
implied from facts and circumstances at-
tending the shipment, but, in the ab-
sence of such contract, the carrier is not
liable for loss beyond its own line.
Crawford v. Southern R. Ass'n, 51 Miss.
222, 24 Am. Rep. 626.

As a general rule, carriers doing busi-
ness between certain points, and not un-
dertaking personally for the carriage of
freight to any further points, but merely
engaging to forward it to its destination
through the established lines of trans-
portation beyond, can not be responsible,
as common carriers, for the freight after
they have delivered it to such other car-
riers for transportation to its destina-
tion. Hooper v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 27
Cal. 11, 85 Am. Dec. 211; Goodrich v.
Thompson, 27 N. Y. Super. Ct. 75; Stan-
nard v. Prince, 64 N. Y. 300; American
Exp. Co. V. Second Nat. Bank, 69 Pa.
394, 8 Am. Rep. 268.

A carrier who receives goods as a car-
rier, and not as a forwarder, and for-
wards them to their destination from the
end of his line, in the exercise of a sound
discretion, can not be held responsible
as common carrier for any subsequent
loss, although it failed to give notice
of its action to the owner or consignor.
Cramer z'. American Merchants' Union
Exp. Co., 56 Mo. 524.

An express company which has re-
ceived a package for transportation be-
yond its own route is not lialile for its
loss after its delivery to another com-
mon carrier at the end of such route in
accordance with the usual custom of
business. United States Fxp. Co. :•. I\nsh,
24 Ind. 403.

In a suit against an express company
for goods lost in transit beyond its line
of conveyance the evidence showed no
payment for the whole route, and no un-
derstanding, usage, or agreement that
the company assmned to be responsible
for the goods after they left its own line.
Held, that it was only bound under its
contract or undertaking to transport
them safely to the point on its line near-
est the place of destination and then to
deliver them to the i)roper carrier to be
forwarded, and that, having done this, it
was not responsible for the subse(|uent

§ 3641



not result from its negligence prior thereto.^- This rule, which is eminently
just and reasonable, is supported by the great weight of authority in this coun-
try. But in some states it has been held that in the absence of a stipulation

loss. Coates z'. United States Exp. Co.,
45 Mo. 238.

A box marked "J. P., Little Falls,"
was delivered at New York, on board a
towboat plying between New York and
Albany, but interested in no boats west
of Albany, with no specific directions as
to its delivery. The towboat delivered
the box, at Albany, to a regular canal
boat, going west. On board the canal
boat, the box was opened and robbed.
Held, that the liability of the towboat
as a carrier ceased at Albany, on delivery
to the canal boat. At Albany it became
a forwarder. Van Santvoord v. St. John
(N. Y.), 6 Hill ]57. reversing 25 Wend.

Goods were received on board a sloop,
to be carried from New York to Troy,
where the carriers transferred them to
a canal boat, pursuant to the owner's di-
rections, but received no reward for the
transfer or for further transportation.
They were held not liable for the loss
of the goods by the upsetting of the boat,
their character of carriers having ceased
at Troy, and they having used due care
in placing the goods in a safe boat. Ack-
ley :•. Kellogg (N. Y.), 8 Cow. 223.

12. Negligence of initial carrier causing
loss or injury after delivery to succeed-
ing carrier. — If a carrier fails to furnish
proper cars for a shipment and injury
results to the goods from a defect in a
car, the carrier is liable, although the
injury may have occurred beyond such
carrier's line. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Marshall, 86 S. W. 802, 74 Ark. 597.

Where a carrier takes horses for trans-
portation beyond its own line, and trans-
fers them to an unsuitable car, and they
are thereby injured, it is liable for the
loss. Eckert v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 60
Atl. 781, 211 Pa. 267, 107 Am. St. Rep.

Where a shipper receives an injury be-
yond the line of the initial carrier, caused
by a defective appliance on the car, even
though the connecting carrier is charged
with the duty of inspecting the car, its
failure to do so will not relieve the initial
carrier from responsibility for negligence
in assigning the shipper a defective car.
Blatcher v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 31
App. D. C. 385.

Where lambs for shipment, before be-
ing loaded, drank salt water that the car-
rier negligently allowed to flow into its
stock yard, without the knowledge of the
owner, the carrier is liable for the death
of the lambs resulting therefrom, though
ilie death did not occur until they were
in the possession of a connecting carrier.
Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Harman, 91 Va.

601, 22 S. E. 490, 44 L. R. A. 283, 50 Am.
St. Rep. 855.

Plaintiff shipped cattle over defendant
railroad company's line, to a point on
another line, the bill of lading providing
that he should load, unload, and transfer
them at his own cost. At a point on de-
fendant's line, the cattle were unloaded
and fed and reloaded by defendant, though
plaintiff was present and willing to do
so, and, in reloading, some of plaintiff's
cattle were placed in the cars of another
shipper. Held, that the mistake was de-
fendant's and it was lial^le for any loss
sustained by plaintiff, though such loss oc-
cured on the line of the connecting car-
rier; since it was the result of its own
negligent act, committed before the cat-
tle were delivered to the connecting car^
rier. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Sutherland,
89 Va. 703, 17 S. E. 127.

In an action against two carriers for
damages to the shipment during transit
over their lines, the court instructed
that if the initial carrier in reloading the
shipment did not exercise ordinary care,
and such failure was the proximate cause
of the damage, while on the line of the
terminal carrier, the jury should find for
the terminal carrier over against the ini-
tial one such damages as occurred be-
tween those points, and also instructed
that, if the initial carrier exercised or-
dinary care, the jury should not find
against it anything for damages occur-
ring on the line of the terminal carrier,
and that, if a part of the damage oc-
curred on each of the roads, the jury
should find against each defendant the
damages that occurred on its line with-
out the fault of the other. Held, that the
instructions fairly presented the law.
Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Warner, 42 Tex.
Civ. App. 280, 93 S. W. 490. affirmed in
101 Te.\. 664, no op.

Description in waybill sufficient to en-
able intermediate carrier to determine
who consignees were. — A waybill of iron
rails received by defendant for transpor-
tation over several successive lines stated
that it was a "waybill of merchandise
transported by the F. R. R. from C. to
B., Nov. 27, 1852. (Consignees) Og-
densburgh R. R. (Description of the ar-
ticles) Rails, part lot." The rails were
not delivered to the consignee, but were
taken by an intermediate carrier, and
used by it. Held, that defendant was not
liable to the consignee on the ground
that it was negligent in making out the
waybill, as the description was sufficient
to enable the inter:nediate carrier to de-
termine who the consignees were. North-
ern R. Co. V. Fitchburg R. Co. (Mass.),
6 Allen 254.



§§ 3641-3642

restricting liability, the acceptance of goods for transportation by a carrier con-
signed to a place beyond its line, implies an undertaking on its part to transport
them safely to the place to which they are consigned, and to be responsible for
loss or injury occurring on the line of a connecting carrier. ^^

§ 3642. Statutory Exemption from Liability. — In some states there are
statutes expressly exempting an initial carrier from liability for loss of or injury
to goods after safe deliver}^ to the succeeding carrier. The peculiar provisions
of some of these statutes have been interpreted by the courts. i"*

13. Undertaking implied from accept-
ance of goods consigned to place beyond
line. — .Uabaiiia. — MoImIc. etc., R. Co. v.

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 35 of 214)