Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 36 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 36 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Copeland, 63 Ala. 219, 33 Am. Rep. 13.

ArkiDisas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cot-
ton. 87 Ark. 339, 112 vS. W. 742.

Georgia. — Rome R. Co. t'. Sullivan, etc.,
Co.. 32 Ga. 400; Southern Exp. Co. z:
Xewb.v, 36 Ga. 635, 91 Am. Dec. 783;
Southern Exp. Co. v. Purcell, 37 Ga. 103,
92 Am. Dec. 53; Mosher & Co. v. South-
ern Exp. Co., 38 Ga. 37; Southern Exp.
Co. r. Shea. 38 Ga. 519; Cohen v. South-
ern Exp. Co., 45 Ga. 148; East Tennes-
see, etc., R. Co. 7'. Johnson, 85 Ga. 497,
11 S. E. 809; Coles v. Central R., etc.,
Co.. 86 Ga. 251. 12 S. E. 749; Central R.,
etc.. Co. V. Skellie, S6 Ga. 686, 12 S. E.
1017: Central R., etc., Co. v. Georgia
Fruit, etc.. Exch., 91 Ga. 389, 17 S. E.
904; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Commer-
cial Guano Co.. 103 Ga. 590, 30 S. E.
555; State z: Wrightsville, etc., R. Co.,
104 Ga. 437, 30 S. E. 891; Central, etc.,
R. Co. r. Murphey, 116 Ga. 863, 43 S. E.
265; Falvey v. Georgia Railroad, 76 Ga.
597. 2 .^m. St. Rep. 58, overruling Baugh
V. McDaniel. 42 Ga'. 641.

///;>JoiJ.— Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Mont-
fort, 60 111. 175; Ohio, etc., R. Co. z: Em-
rich, 24 111. App. 245; Illinois Cent. R.
Co. V. Frankenberg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am.
Rep. 92; .^dams Exp. Co. v. Wilson, 81
III. 339; Elgin, etc., R. Co. z: Bates Mach.
Co.. 98 111. App. 311, affirmed in 200 111.
6:'.6. 06 X. E. 326, 93 Am. St. Rep. 218;
Illinois Cent. R. Co. z: Johnson, 34 111.

Tennessee. — East Tennessee, etc., R.
Co. :-. Rogers. 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 143,
19 Am. Rep. .589; Western, etc.. Railroad
V. .McKhvte. 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 208;
Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Campbell, 54
Tenn. (1 Heisk.) 253; Louisville, etc., R.
Co. V. Weaver. 77 Tenn. (9 Lea) 38, 42
Am. Rep. 654; Merchants' Dispatch
Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn. (2
Pickle) 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St. Rep.

Where a railroad conii)any receives
goods to be transported beyond its ter-
minus;, and delivered to a named person
at a i)articiilar place, a contract is implied
that the carrier will cause the goods to
be transportirl to their destination with-
out loss or damage, and such railroad will
be liable for any loss or damage that
may occur before the goods reach their

destination. Falvey i\ Georgia Railroad,
76 Ga. 597, 2 Am. St. Rep. ^58.

14. Statutory exemption from liability.
— Under the Georgia statute Civ. Code,
§ 229S, providing that a railroad company
shall be liable under its contract of af-
freightment only to its own terminus,
and until delivery to the connecting road,
where no contract of freight was en-
tered into between plaintiff and defend-
ant, binding it to transport his goods be-
yond its line, defendant was not liable
for injuries on the connecting line. Fel-
ton V. Central, etc., R. Co., 40 S. E. 746,
114 Ga. 609.

Code, § 2084, provided that w'here there
are several connecting railroads under
different companies, and goods are in-
tended to be transported over more
than one road, each company shall be
responsible only to its own terminus,
and. until delivery to the connecting
road, the last company which received
the goods in good order being liable to
the consignee for any damage thereto.
Held, that this statute applied only to
cases where there was no contract, ex-
press or implied, by the first company,
to carry the goods to their destination.
Falvey v. Georgia Railroad, 76 Ga. 597,
2 Am. St. Rep. 58, overruling Baugh v.
McDaniel. 42 Ga. 641.

The Oklahoma statute, Comp. Laws
1909, § 514, exempts an initial carrier
from liability for default of the connect-
ing carrier, but does not exempt it from
liability for damages occurring on the
connecting carrier's line, where the latter
is free from fault and the loss was caused
by default of the initial carrier. Midland
Valley R. Co. v. Adkins, 36 Okla. 15, 127
Pac. 867.

Under this statute the liability of an
initial carrier ceases when it delivers the
freight to a competent connecting car-
rier in the direction of the destination
thereof. Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. Walker,
119 Pac. 993, 29 Okla. 856.

The South Dakota statute, Comp. Laws,
§ 39(1."), ijrcnides that, if a common car-
rier accepts freight for a place beyond
his line, unless he stipulates otherwise,
he must deliver it at the end of his line
to some other comiietent carrier, and
that his liability shall cease on making
such delivery. Held, that an instruction
in an action for a loss in shipment, which
imposed on the receiving carrier a con-

§ 3643



§ 3643. Liability Imposed by Statute. — By statute in some states, car-
riers receiving goods for transportation beyond their own lines are liable for
loss or damage sustained on the lines of a connecting carrier, unless they exempt
themselves therefrom by contract with the shipper.'^ Such statutes, so long as

tinned liability beyond his own line, and
covering the negligence of the connect-
ing carrier, was erroneous, since under
the statute the liability of the receiving
carrier ceased on delivery of the goods
to the connecting carrier. Sutton z'. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 84 N. W. 396, 14 S.
Dak. 111.

15, Liability imposed by statute. — Rich-
mond, etc., R. Co. V. Patterson Tobacco
Co., 169 U. S. 311, 42 L. Ed. 759, 18 S. Ct.
335, construing § 1295, Va. Code, of
1887; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCann,
174 U. S. 580, 43 L. Ed. 1093, 19 S. Ct.
755, construing Missouri Rev. Stat. 1889,
ch. 26, § 944; Dimmitt v. Kansas, etc.,
R. Co., 103 Mo. 433, 15 S. W. 761, con-
struing Rev. St. 1879, § 598.

The Nebraska statute, Comp. St. 1893,
c. 16, § 111, providing that "any railroad
company receiving freight for transpor-
tation shall bo entitled to the same rights
and be subject to the same liabilities as
common carriers," and that "whenever
two or more railroads are connected to-
gether, the company owning either of
said roads receiving freight to be trans-
ported to any place on the line of either
* * * shall be liable as common car-
rier for the delivery of the freight to the
consignee * * * j^ the same order in
which such freight was shipped," does
not render a receiving company, which
has only contracted to deliver to the con-
necting carrier, liable for the latter's de-
fault. Miller Grain, etc., Co. v. Union
Pac. R. Co., 138 Mo. 658, 40 S. W. 894.

Where freight addressed to a place
beyond the route of a common carrier
receiving it is lost or injured, the shipper
may demand information from the first
carrier, under the Oklahoma statute, St.
1893, § 511, that the injury did not occur
on its line, and if such carrier fails to
furnish within a reasonable time proof
tending to show that it was not respon-
sible, it will be held liable, whether in
fact it was responsible or not. St. Louis,
etc., R. Co. V. McGivney, 19 Okla. 361,
91 Pac. 693.

The purpose of this statute is to put
the shipper in possession of the informa-
tion which is in the first carrier, so that
he may determine what carrier caused
the injury and obtain satisfaction with-
out being compelled to bring a multiplic-
ity of actions. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
McGivney, 19 Okla. 361, 91 Pac. 693.

A receipt within the South Carolina:
statute, Code 1902, § 2176, making initial
carrier liable for loss of goods shipped
over it and connecting lines, unless it
produces a receipt in writing, is not re-
quired to be in any particular form, and
evidence of a freight agent of the rail-

road company testifying from a record of
his office, known as the "per diem sheet,"
that the goods shipped were received on
a waybill on a certain date and trans-
ferred to a car of another railroad com-
pany for such railroad company, and
v/ere receipted for by them at a certain
hour on that day, was sufficient. Jones-
ville Mfg. Co. V. Southern Railway, 58 S.
E. 422, 77 S. C. 480.

The South Carolina statute. Gen. St.
§ 1513 ("General Railroad Act"), pro-
vides that, in case of loss or damage to
articles delivered to any corporation for
transportation over its own and connect-
ing roads, the initial corporation first re-
ceiving the same shall in every case be
liable for such loss, but may discharge
itself by the production of a written re-
ceipt for the articles from the corpora-
tion to whom it was its duty to deliver
the articles: provided, however, that if
either or any of the railroad corporations
should willfully fail or refuse to produce
such receipts, then it shall not be en-
titled to claim the benefits of such ex-
emption, etc. Held, that the act was in-
tended to include a steamship company
which happens to be one of tbe common
carriers in a through line of transporta-
tion agreed upon by the parties. Miller
V. South Carolina R. Co., 33 S. C. 359, 11
S. E. 1093, 9 L. R. A. 833.

Plaintiffs shipped goods on defendant's
railroad for Buffalo, N. Y., and defendant
delivered them to a steamship company,
the first connecting line for the point of
destination. The goods did not reach
their destination. When the evidence of
delivery was demanded of defendant by
plaintiffs, they did not indicate whether
they wished the receipt of the steamship
or of the railroad corporation next in the
line of transportation. Held, that as the
above statute had not then been con-
strued, and it was therefore doubtful
whether the receipt of the steamship
company would suffice to discharge de*
fendant, its delay in producing it was not
a willful failure or refusal, within the
meaning of the proviso of the act. Mil-
ler V. South Carolina R. Co., 33 S. C. 359,
11 S. E. 1093, 9 L. R. A. 833.

The receiving clerk of the steamship
line testified that he "recollected the re-
ceipt of the goods by referring to my re-
ceipts." Being shown the receipts, which
identified the goods, and were signed by
him, he testified that they were records
of the office, and that duplicates were
furnished defendant. Held, that produc-
tion of these duplicates was sufficient to
discharge defendant. Miller v. South
Carolina R. Co., 33 S. C. 359, 11 S. E,
1093, 9 L. R. A. 833.



§§ 3643-3644

they merely regulate the form of the contract of exemption, are not unconsti-
tutional as interfering with interstate commerce. ^'^ Under a Georgia statute,^"
if a carrier, on application, fails to trace freight carried by a connecting carrier,
it becomes liable for the value of the freight lost or destroyed in the same man-
ner and to the same extent as if the loss occurred on its line.^^

§ 3644. Liability under Contract. ^'^ — Where a carrier has power to con-

16. Constitutionality of statutes. — Rich-
mond, etc., R. Co. r. Patterson Tobacco
Co.. 169 U. S. 311, 42 L. Ed. 759, 18 S. Ct.
Clo; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCann, 174
U. S. 580, 43 L. Ed. 1093, 19 S. Ct. 755.

A statute providing that a carrier shall
be lialDle for loss over the whole route,
unless he exempts himself therefrom by
special contract, and shows, within a cer-
tain time after the loss or damage of
goods, that the injury was not sustained
while the goods were in his charge, is
but a regulation as to the form of his
contract of exemption and is not uncon-
stitutional as interfering with interstate
commerce. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Pat-
terson Tobacco Co., 169 U. S. 311, 42 L.
Ed. 759, 18 S. Ct. 335.

.\ statute of Missouri (Rev. Stat. 1889
ch. 26. § 944) provided that: "Whenever
any property is received by a common
carrier to be transferred from one place
to another, within or without this state,
or when a railroad or other transporta-
tion company issues receipts or bills of
lading in this state, the common carrier,
railroad or transportation company issu-
ing such bill of lading shall be liable for
any loss, damage or injury to such prop-
erty, caused by its negligence or the neg-
ligence of any other common carrier,
railroad or transportation company to
which such property may be delivered, or
over whose line such property may pass;
and the common carrier, railroad or trans-
portation company issuing any such re-
ceipt or bill of lading shall be entitled
to recover, in a proper action, the amount
of any loss, damage or injury it may be
required to pay the owner of such prop-
erty, from the common carrier, railroad
or transportation company, through whose
negligence the loss, damage or injury
may be sustained." The supreme court
of Missouri decided that whilst the stat-
ute left a railway company ami)le power
to restrict its liability by contract, both
as to carriage and as to liability for neg-
ligence, to its own line, the purjjosc em-
bodiccl in the statute was to regulate the
form in which the contract should be ex-
pressed, .so as to require the carrier to
embody the limitation directly and in
unambiguous terms in the i)ortion of the
aRrcenient reciting the contract to trans-
port, and not to import or imply such limi-
tation by way of exception or statements
of cr)nclitions and c)ualitications. r<(|uiring
on the part of the shii)|)er a critical com-
parison of clauses fif the contract, in or-
der to reach a |)roper innkrstanding of

its meaning. That is to say, that the
restraint imposed by the statute was not
a curtailment of the power to limit lia-
bility to the line of the carrier accepting
the freight, but a regulation of the form
in which the contract having that object
in view should be drawn. Held that the
statute as thus interpreted was not re-
pugnant to the Constitution of the United
States. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. McCann
174 U. S. 580, 43 L. Ed. 1093, 19 S. Ct.

17. Civ. Code, § 2318.

18. Liability of carrier failing to trace
freight — Georgia statute construed.—
Central, etc., R. Co. v. Murphey, 113 Ga.
514, 38 S. E. 970, 53 L. R. A. 720.

Under this statute the carrier becomes
liable for the negligence of the connect-
ing carrier. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Mur-
phey. 113 Ga. 514, 38 S. E. 970, 53 L. R.
A. 720.

Where, under the terms of a contract
for carriage, a carrier obligated itself to
carry freight to one of the term'ini of its
railroad and there deliver it to a connect-
ing- line of railroad "or" steamers, to be
transported to its destination, and such
goods were delivered by the initial car-
rier to a carrier by water, and transported
to their destination, and placed in the ware-
house of such carrier by water, subject to
the order of the consignee, such goods were
not in fact at that time "lost," within
Civ. Code, § 2318, so as to afTord a right
of _ acton in favor of the consignor
against the initial carrier for failing to
trace such freight. McElveen v. South-
ern R. Co., 34 S. E. 281, 109 Ga. 249, 77
Am. St. Rep. 371.

Where, in order to avail himself of the
right of action afforded by Civ. Code, §
2317, et seq., the shipper of goo(ls over
connecting lines of railway merely gives
notice to the initial carrier that the goods
shipped have not been delivered to the
consignee, claiming that they have never
arrived at destination, and thereupon de-
mands that such carrier shall trace the
goods and "show delivery," he can not
recover of it, under these sections, for in-
jury done to the goods in transportation,
where the goods were in fact delivered
to the consignee prior fo tlir service of
such notice. Sax aniiali, rlr., K. Co. 7'.
Austin, 29 S. E. II, 101 Ga. 629.

19. .\s to wheilicr the acceptance of
goods for lransi)ortation by a carrier,
consigned to a place beyond its line, im-
l)lies ;in undertaking on its part to trans-
port llicni safely to the place to which

§ 3644



tract for through carriage, and exercises such power in the proper manner, it is
liable in all respects for loss or damage upon connecting roads as upon its own
lines,-" and in some states this liability is enforced by statute. -^ Under such a

they are consigned and to be responsible
for loss or injury occurring on the line
of a connecting carrier, see ante, "In
General," § 3641.

20. Liability of initial carrier under
contract for through transportation. — •
United States. — Railway Co. v. McCar-
thy, 96 U. S. 258, 24 L. Ed. 693; Railroad
Co. V. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123, 22 L. Ed. 827,
49 How. Prac. 84.

Illinois. — Bissel v. Price, 16 111. 408.

Kentucky. — Bryan v. Memphis, etc., F.
Co., 11 Bush 597; Louisville, etc., R. Co.
V. Foster, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 637.

Mississippi. — Crawford v. Southern R.
Ass'n, 51 Miss. 222, 24 Am. Rep. 626.

Missouri. — Davis v. Jacksonville South-
eastern Line, 126 Mo. 69, 28 S. W. 965.

Neiv York. — Root v. Great Western R.
Co., 45 N. Y. 524; Berg v. Narragansett
Steamship Co., 5 Daly 394.

Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.' Baird, 75
Tex. 256, 12 S. W. 530.

Washington. — Allen, etc., Co. v. Cana-
dian Pac. R. Co., 42 Wash. 64, 84 Pac.

The carrier with whom a contract of
transportation is made is responsible for
the safe carriage of the goods to the
place of destination as fixed in the con-
tract, both on its own route and on a
subsequent route to which the goods may
be transferred. Mallory v. Burrett (N.
Y.), 1 E. D. Smith 234.

Where goods are received by a carrier
for transportation, and a through bill of
lading given, the shipper may elect to
sue it for the negligence of a connecting
carrier. Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Twiss,
35 Neb. 267, 53 N. W. 76, 37 Am. St. ReD.

An undertaking to deliver freight in
good order at the place to which it is
consigned makes the carrier liable for
loss occurring beyond the terminus of its
own road. Louisville, etc., Mail Co. v.
Levey & Co., 11 Ky. L. Rep. 286.

The principle is well settled that rail-
road companies, as common carriers, may
make valid contracts to transport prop-
erty beyond the limits of their own
roads, and, when they do, they are bound
to deliver the property at its place of
destination, according to their contract,
and are liable for all injury to such prop-
erty prior to its delivery, although such
injury happens after the property has
passed over their road on its way, and
while in the charge of other carriers
ever whom they have no control. Morse
V. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550.

Where a: common carrier gives a bill
of lading for goods to be delivered be-
yond its route, and does not by express
agreement limit its liability to loss or in-
jury sufifered on its own line, it thereby

binds itself for the safe delivery of the
goods at destination, and is liable for in-
juries to the goods, whether on its own
line or that of a connecting carrier.
Southern R. Co. v. Levy, 39 So. 95, 144
Ala. 614.

A carrier of freight, who expressly
contracts to deliver goods at a destina-
tion beyond the terminus of his own
road, is answerable for the negligence of
any connecting road in the line of trans-
portation. Newell v. Smith, 49 Vt. 255.
See, also, Ortt v. Minneapolis, etc., R.
Co., 36 Minn. 396, 31 N. W. 519.

Where a carrier contracts to deliver
property beyond its own line, thereby
continuing its liability to the point of de-
livery, it becomes liable for any loss on
the connecting line, though under the
traffic agreement its trains, -svhile on the
connecting line, may be under the control
of the connecting carrier; the latter in
such case becoming the agent of the ini-
tial carrier, and its employees and agents
becoming those of the initial carrier, for
whose negligence it is liable to the ship-
per. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace,
118 S. W. 412, 90 Ark. 138, 22 L. R. A.,
N. S., 379.

Where a railway company's agent had
authority to sign bills of lading for the
company, and signed a bill of lading for
a through shipment over the line of a
connecting carrier, and it did not appear
that the consignor or consignee looked
to the responsibility of any other carrier
in the event goods were lost, the company
was liable for loss of the goods by a con-
necting carrier, for, having enlarged its.
liability by reason of such special con-
tract, it must be held liable for the value
of the goods lost. Bryan z'. Memphis,,
etc., R. Co. (Ky.), 11 Bush 597.

21. The Georgia statute. Code, § 2055,
provides that, where goods are handled
by connecting carriers, each is only lia-
ble to the terminus of its line; but § 2041
provides that, if a special contract be
made, the contract will govern. Defend-
ant, whose road terminated at A., where
it connected with another line, received
cotton consigned to a point on the line
of the connecting carrier, giving a re-
ceipt specifying that the cotton was "to
be transported in turn to" the consignee
in New York. Held that, since there was
a special contract on the part of the de-
fendant to carry the property to New
York, defendant was liable for the value
of a portion of the cotton destroyed by
fire while in the possession of the con-
necting carrier. King z>. Macon, etc., R.
Co. (N. Y.), 62 Barb. 160.

Under the New York statute, Act 1847,
c. 270, a railroad company receiving
goods under an agreement for transpor-



§ 3644

contract, the shipper is not altected by notices placed in the station of the initial
carrier by one of the connecting carriers. 22 If a carrier holds itself out as a car-
rier bevond the end of its line, and undertakes to transport goods beyond its
terminus, it is liable for the loss of the goods on the line of a connecting carrier,
though it has no through traiific arrangement with the connecting carrier.-^ A
steamboat giving a bill of lading obligatory to deliver goods at a point outside
of its route, with privilege of transshipment, is liable for a loss occurring while
the goods are being transshipped in another vessel. - * A carrier undertaking to
forward goods beyond its own line is liable only until their safe arrival at their
destination and storage in accordance with the usual custom, and the fact that
they were transported over the last part of the distance by a steamboat com-
pan}- designated by the shipper does not continue such liability beyond the time
the shipper is notitied of their arrival, or may be presumed from his conduct to
have had actual knowledge of the fact.-^ The judicial interpretation of a num-
ber of contracts made by initial carriers to detennine whether they constitute
contiacts for through transportation will be found in the appended note.-*^

tation to a point beyond the terminus of
its own road and upon the line O' a con-
necting road, whether within or without
the state, is responsible as a common
carrier for these goods both upon its
own line and upon the line of the con-
necting road. Burtis v. Buffalo, etc., R.
Co., 24 X. Y. 269.

22. Effect of notice of second carrier
posted in station of first. — Railroad Co.
V. Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall. 123. 22 L. Ed.
827, 49 How. Prac. 84.

Where the second road posts its rules
in the station house of the first, a person
furnishing goods for transportation
"through" is not to be held as of neces-
sity to have notice of them from the fact
of such posting, and because he was of-
ten in the stotion house of the first com-
pany where they were posted. Independ-
ently of which, his contract being with
the first company only, and it agreeing
to carry for the whole distance, its rules
are the rules that are to govern the case.
Railroad Co. v. Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall.
12.'{. 22 T,. Ed. «27. 49 How. Prac. 84.

23. Through traffic arrangement with
connecting carrier not essential to liabil-
ity.— Perkins V. Portland, etc., R. Co., 47
.Me. 'yl'.i, 74 .Am. Dec. r,()-.

24. Through bill of lading by steamboat
with privilege of transshipment. — I lirsch
V. i.c;iili(r>. :.*:', l,;i. Ann. .".ii.

25. When carrier's liability terminates.
— Illinois Cent. R. Co. :. Carter, 4C) .\. I'..

:i7i. i<;.-. 111. .-,7(1. m; l. r. .\. :,2:.

26. Contracts for through transporta-
tion. — Where a railroad gives a receipt
for good>, stating they arc to Ije deliv-
ered at a point beyond its route, it con-
stiJutes a contract to carry to such point,
and it i.s liable thereunder for a loss be-
yond its route. I'.ryan 7'. Mcmiihis, etc.,
R. Co. (Ky.), 11 Hush .•.97; Kyle t-. Lau-
rens R. Co. (S. C), 10 Rich. L. :{H2, 70
Am. Dec. 2:{I. See. also, Cohen i: South-
ern Kxp. Co., ir, C,a. 14H.

\N hen a common carrier receives goods
to be transported to a certain point of

destination expressed upon the face of
his receipt therefor, he undertakes to de-
liver the goods so received, either by his
own line of transportation or that he
will do so by his own competent agents
for that purpose; and it is no defense, in
case of the loss of the goods, for the car-

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 36 of 214)