Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 43 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 43 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


6. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. :■. Greening
(Ky. ). 100 S. W. 825, 26 R. R. R. 235, 49
Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 235; Louis-
ville, etc.. R. Co. V. Cooper, 13 Ky. L.
Rep. 496.

7. Taylor v. :Maine Cent. R. Co., 87
Me. :.".):». :v.i .Atl. !)05.

8. Hoffman v. Cumberland Valley R.
Co.. 8.-I .Md. 391, 37 Atl. 214.

9. Burroughs v. Norwich, etc., R. Co.,
100 Mass. 26, 1 Am. Rep. 78.

10. Black V. Ashley, SO Mich. 00, 44 N.
W. 1120; Rickerson Roller-Mill Co. v.
Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 110,
34 N. W. 269; McEacheran v. Michigan
Cent. R. Co.. 101 Mich. 264, 59 N. W. 612.

11. Ortt V. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 36
Minn. :;06, 31 N. W. 519.

12. Gray v. Jackson & Co.. 51 N. H. 9,
12 Am. Rep. 1.

13. One of several connecting carriers
may limit its liability to damages sus-
tained by the goods while in its own
custodv. \Vcini>crg v. Albemarle, etc.,
k. Co.. 91 \. C. 31.

14. Wright V. Boughton (N. Y.), 22
Barb. 561.

15. TafTc V. Oregon R., etc., Co.. 41
Ore. 64. 67 Pac. 1015, 68 Pac. 732, 58 L.
R.A. 187.

" 'A railroad company is a carrier cjf
goods for the public,' says .Mr. Justice

Field in Myrick v. Alichigan Cent. R.
Co., 107 U. S. 102, 27 L. Ed. 325, 1 S. Ct.
425, 'and as such is bound to carry safely
whatever goods are intrusted to it for
transportation, within the course of this
business, to the end of its route, and
there deposit them in a suitable place
for their owner's or consignees. If the
road of the company connects with other
roads, and goods are received for trans-
portation beyond the termination of its
own line, there is superadded to its duty
as a common carrier that of a forwarder
by the connecting line; that is, to deliver
safely the goods to such line, the next
carrier on the route beyond. This for-
warding duty arises from the obligation
implied in taking the goods for the point
beyond its own line. The common law
imposes no greater duty than this. If
more is expected from the company re-
ceiving the shipment, there must be a
special agreement for it.' " Taffe v. Ore-
gon R.. etc., Co., 41 Ore. 64, 67 Pac.
1015, 68 Pac. 732. 58 L. R. A. 187.

16. Dunbar v. Port Royal, etc., R. Co.,
36 S. C. 110, 15 S. E. 357, 31 Am. St. Rep.
860; McMeekin v. Southern Railway, 85
S. C. 381, 67 S. E. 745.

A railroad company may relieve itself
from liability for damage to goods re-
ceived for shipment, if the damage oc-
curs on a connecting line, by expressly
so stipulating in the bill of lading. Hill
V. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 43 S. C. 461, 21
S. E. 337.

17. The mere fact that a railroad com-
pany receives goods marked for a place
beyond its own line does not import an
agreement to transport the goods to the
destination named as a common carrier.
Hunter v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 76 Tex.
195, 13 S. W. 190.

18. Morse r. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550.

19. Roy V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. (W.
Va.l, 57 S. E. 39, 26 R. R. R. 230, 49
.■\ni. X: l-.n'j. R. Cas., N. S.. 230.

20. Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Farmers',
etc.. B.ank, 20 Wis. 122.

Tlu' first or any succeeding one of
connecting carriers may, by contract, re-
strict its liability to losses occurring on
its own line. Tolman v. Abl)ot, 78 Wis.
V.V.l. 4 7 \. W. 264.

21. Stipulation declaratory of common
law. — I'ittsl)uri;, etc., 1\. Co. V. .MitLlKll,
175 Ind. lUC, '.n X. !■■.. 735.

§§ 3692-3693 carriers. 3328

left its line, - but may by special contract extend bis liability so as to cover a
safe delivery at the place of destination. ^^

Naming Destination in Receipt Clause of Bill of Lading. — The receipt
clause in a bill of lading, naming the destination of the property to be shipped —
a point beyond the terminus of the carrier's line — does not impose on it the
liability of a carrier beyond such terminus, and hence does not conflict with a
subsequent express stipulation that its liability as carrier shall cease at its
freight station in the terminus of its line, or with a provision that, when necessary
to transport the property to point of destination over the line of any other car-
rier, delivery to such carrier may be made, and the original carrier shall not be
liable for the negligence of such other carrier.^*

Receipt of Goods Marked C. 0. D. — The liability of an express company
which receives goods for transportation over its own and a connecting line is
ordinarily discharged by delivery to the connecting line, and such liability is not
extended in this respect by the fact that it receives the goods marked "C. O. D.,"
where the company gives a receipt, made out by the shipper on one of its blanks,
furnished him for his daily use, stating that the company only undertakes to carry
the goods to the point on its line of destination, to there deliver them to the other
company, and that it will not be liable for loss at a point not on its own line.^s

Connecting Point Not Properly Stated.— Where a bill of lading stated that
the initial carrier had received the goods to be trans]:)orted and delivered to the
succeeding carrier, to be forwarded to destination, it being expressly agreed that
the initial carrier's responsibility ceased on the arrival of the goods at its ter-
minal depot, where they were to be delivered to the connecting carrier, such con-
Liact, in the absence of statute, limited the initial carrier's liability to loss ac-
cruing on its own line, though the blank in the bill for the insertion of the con-
necting point was not properly filled, 2<^ or left blank. -'^

§ 3693. English Rule as to Effect of Receipt of Goods.— The English
rule, and by the doctrine of some of the courts of this country, such a receipt
of goods for transportation, without else to indicate the intent of the parties
concerned, implies, prima facie, an undertaking or contract upon the part of the
carrier to convey them to the point of destination, as indicated by the direc-
tion or consignment, whether the carrier owns or controls all the lines of trans-
portation in the route of their travel or not.^^ This is the doctrine in Illinois, ^^

22. Morse t'. Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550. blank was not filled. The written part
_ A railroad companj^ as a common car- of the contract provided for "fastest pas-

rier, is liable for injuries that occur be- senger train service, consigned as above."
yond the termination of its own road, A stipulation relieved the carrier from
only when it stipulates to deliver the liability for loss or injury to the prop-
property at a point beyond. Morse v. erty, except on its own lines. Held, that
Brainerd, 41 Vt. 550. the blank space for the destination of the

23. Black v. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90, 44 N. goods was reserved for points on car-
W. 1120. _ rier's own lines, and that the written

24. Naming destination in receipt part of the contract was a contract for
clause of bill of lading. — Keller 7'. Balti- general carriage, containing the designa-
more, etc., R. Co., lOfj Pa. 57, 46 Atl. 261. tion of the place of shipment, subject to

25. Receipt of goods marked c. o. d. — the stipulation as to liability, and there-
Gibson v. i\merican ^Merchants' Union fore the carrier was not liable for losses
Exp. Co. (N. Y.), 1 Hun 387, 3 Thomp. on lines of connecting carriers. Tafife v.
& C. 501. Oregon R., etc., Co., 67 Pac. 1015, 68

26. Connecting point not properly Pac. 732, 41 Ore. 64, 58 L. R. A. 187.
stated.— Xenno v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 28. English rule.— Taf¥e v. Oregon R.,
105 Mo. App. 540, 80 S. W. 2 1. etc., Co., 41 Ore. 64, 67 Pac. 1015, 68

27. Blank for destination not filled.— Pac. 732, 58 L. R. A. 187; Morse v. Brain-
A contract of shipment of goods con- erd, 41 Vt. 550.

signed to New York was made upon the 29. The rule is that where goods are

carrier's printed form of bill of lading, delivered to a railway company, marked

containing a blank space for the place of to a place not upon the hne of i^s road,

destination, with directions not to insert but beyond the same, with no other di-

points not on the carrier's lines. The rections or without any express contract


lowa,^^^ and Tennessee.^ ^ The distinction between the rules is that by the former
the duty implied is to carry the goods to the end of the receiving carrier's line, and
rhere to deliver them to the next carrier in the route, to be forwarded thereby ; ^^
while by the latter the duty implied is to carry them through to their destination.
The engagement, of course, may be varied in either case, by express contract,
or the circumstances attending the shipment may raise a different obligation by
implication ; and thus, in order to exempt a carrier beyond its own lines, under
rhe English rule, there must be an express or implied limitation or restriction of
primary liability ; and to enlarge the liability, under the American rule, there
must be an express or implied undertaking to that eft"ect, aside from the mere
receipt of the goods destined to a point beyond the route of its own authority.
The so-called American rule is perhaps better grounded in equal justice towards
the shipper and carrier, and in public policy, and is therefore preferable upon
principle, as well as by the preponderance of American authority.^-^

Refusal of Connecting- Carrier to Receive Shipment. — Under the English
rule it is no excuse for failure to receive shipment that the connecting road refused
to receive the freight and advance the charges due and paid by the company sued.^*

Bills of Lading Received by Consignor from Connecting Lines. — Where
the consignor of property which a railroad company agreed to transport from
one point to another, partially over connecting lines, signed and received from
the connecting lines bills of lading in w^hich they assumed all liability, there was
sufficient evidence that the consignor did not regard the initial carrier as having
assumed a carrier's liability for the entire distance.-^'^

Shipping Over Each Road under Separate Contract. — The fact that the
destination of a shipment received by a railroad for transportation is beyond
its own line, or that it w^as received from another carrier to be transported to a
point on its own line, does not create any joint responsibility between the con-
necting carriers, where the shipment over each is under a separate contract which
limits its liability for loss or injuries to such as may occur on its own line.^*^

Shipper Having Knowledge of Usage of Carrier to Deliver Goods at
Terminus and Collect Charges Over Its Own Road Only. — Although a rail-
road company received goods marked and destined to a point beyond the terminus
of its own line, and did not expressly limit its liability to carry the goods to such
terminus, if the company shows that it was its unvarying usage to deliver
the goods at the terminus of its road ; and that it only undertook to transport

as In the place of deliver}', the law will 32. Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Mineral

implj' an undertaking on the part of the Springs Mfg. Co. (U. S.), 16 Wall. 318,

carrier to transport and deliver the goods 21 L. Ed. 297.

at the place to which they are marked. 33. Taffe v. Oregon R., etc., Co., 41 Ore.

Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 74 111. G4, 67 Pac. 1015, 68 Pac. 732, 58 L. R. A.

197. _ 187.

30. A carrier's undertaking to transport 34. Refusal of connecting carrier to re-
goods delivered to it to their destination ceive shipment. — A railroad company re-
may be implied from the circumstances ccivcd froiglit for carriage and delivery
of the delivery and acceptance, as well at a point beyond its line on a connect-
as expressed; and in either case its re- ing road. In the absence of a special
spnnsibility for the safety of the goods contract limiting the responsibility, the
is the same. Aiken v. Chicago, etc., R. comjjany receiving the freight is bound
Co., 6S Iowa 303, 27 N. W. 281. to deliver it at its destination. It is no

Receipt of a carrier for goods directed excuse for not doing so, that the con-
to a place beyond his professed termini necting road refused to receive the
is prima facie evidence of a contract to freight and advance the charges due and
deliver at such place. Angle & Co. v. paid I)y tlie company sued. Railroad v.
-Mississippi, etc., R. Co., 9 Iowa 487. Slockard, .".S Tcnn. (11 llci^k.) .-.68.

31. Where a railroar! company, witli- 35. Bills of lading received by con-
out contracting for restricted liability, re- signer from connecting lines. — Hartley
ceivcs goods consigned to a point be- 7.. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 115 Iowa 612,
yond its terminus but on the line of a so N. W. 88, 1 R. U. K. 560, 24 .\m. &
connecting route, it is bound to deliver I'jig. I-J. Cas!, N. S., 569.

them at their destination. Louisville, 36. Shipment over each road under

etc.. R. Co. V. Campbell, 54 Tenn. (7 separate contract.— McOuire v. Great
Hcisk.) 253. .XortluTM R. Co., 153 Fed. 134.

§§ 3693-3694



over its own line ; and that this fact was known to the shipper, and if, more-
over, it charged the shipper freight, and collected it from him for transportation
over its own road only, such facts would be sufficient to rebut the inference of
an implied contract to carry the freight to its destination and deliver it to the

§§ 3694-3711. Carrier Contracting to Carry Beyond Its Own Line —
§ 3694. In General. — A common carrier which contracts to convey goods be-
3-ond its own line may in the contract restrict its liability for such goods to the time
they are on its own line,^^ since a common carrier is not bound in law to transport
goods beyond its terminus. This doctrine prevails in Arkansas, ^^ Georgia,^^
lUinois,^^ Indiana,"*- lowa,'*^ IMichigan,-*^ Minnesota,'*-'' Missouri,-*" Ne-
braska,'*''' Tennessee ■*^ and Texas. •*^

37. Shipper having knowledge of usage
of carrier to deliver goods at terminus
and collect charges over its own road
only. — Western, etc., Railroad ?'. AIcEl-
wee, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 208.

38. Carrier contracting to carry beyond
its own line. — Wabash R. Co. z\ Harris
& Co., 55 111. App. 159.

39. A railroad company, in giving a bill
of lading for the transportation of goods
over its own line and other connecting
lines, or other public means of carriage,
may contract against liability for loss of
or damage to the goods happening be-
yond the termination of its own line.
Taylor, etc., Co. i: Little Rock, etc., R.
Co.. 32 Ark. 393, 29 Am. Rep. 1.

40. Central, etc., R. Co. v. Murphey, 116
Ga. 863. 43 S. E. 265, 60 L. R. A. 817;
Central R., etc., Co. v. Avant, 80 Ga. 195,
5 S. E. 78: McElveen v. Southern R. Co.,
109 Ga: 249, 34 S. E. 281.

41. Chicago, etc.. R. Co. v. Chapman,
133 111. 96, 24 N. E. 417. 42 Am. cSi Eng.
R. Cas. 392, affirming 30 111. App. 504;
Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Chicago Elect.
Vehicle Co.. 124 111. App. 158; Wabash
R. Co. V. Harris & Co., 55 111. App. 159;
Field z'. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 71 111. 458;
Illinois Match Co. 7'. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
250 111. 396. 95 N. E. 492. reversing 153
111. App. 568; Elgin, etc., R. Co. v. Bates
]\Iach. Co., 98 111. App. 311, afhrmed in
200 111. 636, 66 N. E. 326, 93 Am. St. Rep.

A carrier may by express contract ob-
ligate itself to deliver at destination be-
yond its own line, and may also limit its
liability to such damage or loss as occurs
t)n such line. Coats z'. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 87 N. E. 929, 239 111. 154.

42. Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Brvant, 36
Ind. App. 340, 75 N. E. 829.

43. Hartley v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co..
115 Iowa 612, 89 N. W. 88. 1 R. R. R. 569,
24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 569.

44. Black v. Ashley, 80 Mich. 90, 44 N.
W. 1120.

45. The obligation of a carrier to carry
goods beyond its own line being a mat-
ter of contract, and not of legal duty, if
he contracts for through transportation,
he may limit his responsibility to his
own line. Dodge r. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
Ill Minn. 123, 126 N. W. 627.

46. Miller v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 157

Mo. App. 638, 138 S. W. 902. See post,
"Missouri," § 3701.

47. Although a railroad company en-
ters into a joint contract with another
company for the transportation of goods
to a point beyond the end of its own
line, it is competent for it to enter into
an express contract with the shipper lim-
iting its liability to the transportation of
the property over its own line. Fremont,
etc., R. Co. V. New York, etc., R. Co., 92
N. W. 131, 66 Neb. 159, 59 L. R. A.
939. See post, "E.xpress Contract," §

48. East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v.
Brumley, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 401, 6 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 356; Dillard Bros. v. L. &
N. R. Co., 70 Tenn. "(2 Lea) 288; Mem-
phis, etc., R. Co. V. Holloway, 68 Tenn.
(9 Baxt.) 188; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Campbell, 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.) 253; Mer-
chants' Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bloch,
86 Tenn. (2 Pickle) 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6
Am. St. Rep. 847; Bird v. Railroads, 99
Tenn. (15 Pickle) 719, 42 S. W. 451, 63
Am. St. Rep. 856.

The first carrier has the legal right, at
its election, to undertake the transporta-
tion of the goods to the terminus of its
own line merely, or to their ultimate
destination. It is under no legal obliga-
tion, in the first instance, to transport
them beyond the end of its own line,
and, for that reason, it is authorized in
law, when contracting for through trans-
portation, to limit its liabilit}' to losses
occurring on its own line. Merchants'
Despatch Transp. Co. v. Bloch, 86 Tenn.
(2 Pickle) 392, 6 S. W. 881, 6 Am. St.
Rep. 847; East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v.
Brumley, 73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 401, 6 Am. &
Eng. R. Cas. 356; Dillard Bros. v. L. &
N. R. Co., 70 Tenn. (2 Lea) 288; Tele-
graph Co. V. Munford, 87 Tenn. 189, 10
S. W. 318, 2 L. R. A. 601; Bird v. Rail-
roads, 99 Tenn. (15 Pickle) 719, 42 S. W.
451, 63 Am. St. Rep. 856.

Delivery to succeeding carrier. — A con-
dition in a bill of lading providing that
the carrier's liability shall cease upon de-
livery to the carrier over whose connect-
ing line the freight is to be shipped is
valid. T. & P. R. Co. z: Rogers (Tenn.),
3 S. W. 660.

49. A common carrier may stipulate in
a contract of shipment to a point beyond



§§ 3694-3696

Public Policy. — Where a common carrier contracts to transport goods from
one point to another, necessarily over connecting lines, it is not prevented on
grounds of public policy from contractually limiting its liability for the negli-
gence of the connecting carriers.^'' Aliter in Kentucky.-''^

§§ 3695-3696. Effect of Federal Statutes— § 3695. Prior to Hep-
burn Act. — As to interstate through shipments made by an initial carrier before
the amendment of the interstate commerce act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat.
386 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169], as amended by Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591,
§ 7. 34 Stat. 593 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 906]), forbidding the limita-^
tion by zn initial carrier of its liability as insurer where it contracts to carry
though, it- could limit its liability as insurer for a consideration such as a reduced
rate of freight. ^-

§ 3696. Under Hepburn Act. — A carrier may not by contract limit the lia-
bilities imposed on it by Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24
Stat. 386 ([U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169]) § 20, as amended by Act June 29,
1906, c. 3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 593 U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1163), making the
initial carrier of an interstate shipment liable for any loss or injury thereto caused

its line that it shall be released from li-
abilitj' after the goods have left its road.
McCarn z: International, etc., R. Co., 84
Tex. 352, 19 S. W. 547, 31 Am. St. Rep.
.^1, 16 L. R. A. 39. following Texas, etc..
R. Co. V. Adams, 78 Tex. 372. 14 S. W.
666. 22 Am. St. Rep. 56; disapproving
Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Vaughn, 4 Texas
App. Civ. Cas., § 182, 16 S- W. 775; Gulf,
etc., R. Co. V. Golding, 3 Texas App. Civ.
Cas., § 33; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Fra-
zar, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 585, 97 S. W. 325;
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Creath, 3 Texas
.^pp. Civ. Cas., § 83; Texas, etc., R. Co.
T'. Logan, 3 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 186;
Texas Exp. Co. v. Dupree, 2 Texas App.
Civ. Cas., § 318; Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Scrivener. 2 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 328;
Rogers v. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.). 28 S. W. 1024; Houston, etc.,
R. Co. V. Park, 1 Texas App. Civ. Cas.,
§ 332; International, etc., R. Co. v.
Thornton, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 197, 23 S. W.
67. See, to the same effect. Gulf, etc., R.
Co. V. Baird, 75 Tex. 256, 12 S. W. 530;
Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Looney, 85 Tex. 158,
19 S. W. 1039, 34 Am. St. Rep. 787, 16 L.
R. A. 471; Harris v. Howe, 74 Tex. 534,
12 S. W. 224. 15 Am. St. Rep. 862, 5 L.
R. A. 777; Hunter z'. Southern Pac. R.
Co., 76 Tex. 195, 13 S. W. 190; Ft. Worth,
etc.. R. Co. v. Williams, 77 Tex. 121, 1.'?
S. W. 637; McCarty v. Galveston, etc., R.
Co., 79 Tex. 3.3, 15 S. W. 164; Interna-
tional, etc., R. Co. V. Startz, 97 Tex. 167,
77 S. W. 1, reversing 74 S. W. 1118; Gulf,
etc.. R. Co. 7'. Gatcwood, 79 Tex. 89, 14
S. W. 913, 10 L. R. A. 419; Houston, etc.,
Nav. Co. r. Insurance Co., S9 Tex. 1, 32
S. W. 889, 30 L. R. A. 713. 59 Am. St.
Rep. 17, tevcrsing 31 S. W. 560.

A carrier may limit its lial)ility to its
own line in a contract for a through ship-
nu-nt lo a |)oint on another carrier's line.

Galveston, etc., R. Co. ?-. Short (Tex. Civ.
App.), 25 S. W. 142; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.
Thompson (Tex. Civ. App.), 21 S. W.

Partnership between roads. — A railway
company has the right to limit its liabil-
ity to its own line, and is not liable for
injuries received on another line of rail-
way, if there is no partnership existing
between them. Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Hawkins (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 1113.
See post, "Connecting Carriers Which
Are Partners," § 3713.

50. Public policy. — Illinois. — Lehigh Val-
lev Transp. Co. v. Pillsbury-Washburn
Flour Mills Co., 92 111. App. 628; Elgin,
etc., R. Co. V. Bates ]\Iach. Co., 98 111.
App. 311, affirmed in 66 N. E. 326, 200 111.
636, 93 Am. St. Rep. 218.

lozi'a. — Hartley v. St. Louis, etc., R.
Co., 115 Iov.ra 612, 89 N. W. 88, 1 R. R.
R. 569, 24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas., N. S., 569.

Michigan. — Kibby v. Michigan Cent. R.
Co., 142 Mich. 313, 105 N. W. 769.

Missouri. — Eckles v. Missouri Pac. R.
Co., 112 Mo. App. 240, 87 S. W. 99.

Ohio. — Stevens v. Lake Shore, etc., R.
Co.. 20 O. C. C. 41, 11 O. C. D. 168.

Tennessee. — Bird v. Railroads, 99 Tenn.
CIJ Pickle) 719, 42 S. W. 451, 63 Am. St.
Rrp. 856.

51. A stipulation, in a contract l)y an
initial carrier for through siiipment over
connecting carriers, that the initial car-
rier shall not be liable for loss or dam-
age occurring on the connecting line is
void as against public policy, as the ini-
tial carrier can not exempt itself from
liability for the act of its agent. Ireland
7'. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 49 S. W. 188, 453,
20 Ky. L. Reii. 1586, 105 Ky. 400.

52. Prior to Hepburn Act. — Blackmer,
itc, I'ipe Co. z: M(.l)iU-, etc., R. Co., 137
.Mo. .\pp. 479, 119 S. W. 1.

4 Car— 15

§ 3696



by any connecting carrier, because of the rate charged for the transportation. ^^
Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p.
892), the Hepburn act, is declaratory of the common law when it makes a carrier
responsible for loss or damage occurring on its line or that of a connecting car-
rier, but is derogatory thereto when it forbids and annuls contracts exempting the
initial carrier from liability for loss or damage occurring upon the line of a con-
necting carrier.^-* The act makes void all contracts by an initial carrier limiting
the liability of a connecting carrier. •"^■'^ A contract for an interstate shipment of
goods, limiting the liability of the carrier to loss occurring while the goods were
in its possession and the damages to a stated amount, is void in these particulars
and can not affect the shipper's right to recover for their loss.^"^

Unauthorized Diversion by Intermediate Carrier. — Under the Act of Cong.
Feb. 4, 1887, as amended by the Carmack amendment of June 29, 1906, an initial
carrier, under a contract of shipment of a car load over specified connecting lines,
is liable for loss following unauthorized diversion of the shipment from the spec-
ified route by the second carrier, though the contract purported to limit liability
to an agreed valuation. ^"^ Under the Hepburn act (Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c.
3591, 34 Stat. 595 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1166]) a bill of lading issued

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 43 of 214)