Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 44 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 44 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


after the taking effect of such act for goods to be transported from a point in
one state to a point in another state is of no effect, in so far as it stipulates a
limitation of such carriers liability to loss occurring on its own line.^^ The act



53. Under Hepburn Act. — Central, etc.,
R. Co. 7'. Sims, 169 Ala. 295, 53 So. 826;
St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grayson, 89 Ark.
154, 115 S. W. 93?,.

54. Southern Pac. Co. v. Crenshaw
Bros.. 5 Ga. App. 675, 63 S. E. 865.

Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887,
c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 386 (U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 3169), as amended bv Act Cong.
June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 593 (U.
S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 906), provid-
ing that a carrier, on receiving property
for interstate transportation, shall issue
a bill of lading therefor, and be liable to
the holder for any loss, and no contract
shall exempt the carrier from the liabil-
ity imposed, abrogates the_ common-law
rule that each carrier is liable for the
losses occurring on its own line, and
makes the initial carrier liable for losses
occurring on the lines of connecting car-
riers, and forbids it from exempting it-
self by agreement from such liability.
Judgment, 111 N. Y. S. 235. 59 Misc. Rep.
431, reversed in Greenwald v. Weir, 115
N. Y. S. 311, 130 App. Div. 696, appli-
cation denied to resettle order 116 N. Y.
S. 172, 131 App. Div. 568.

55. The Hepburn amendment (Act
June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 593
[U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 906]) to
the interstate commerce act (Act Feb. 4,
1887, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat. 386 [U. S.
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169]) makes inter-
state carriers liable for loss or injury to
property caused by it, prohibits contracts
exempting the carrier from the liability
thereby imposed, and provides that the
carrier issuing the freight receipt or bill
of lading may recover from the carrier
on whose line the injury occurred any
damages it may be required to pay the
owner. Held, that the act made invalid



all contracts limiting a carrier's liability
for loss of freight, and an initial carrier
could not contract to limit the liability
of a connecting carrier. Kansas, etc., R.
Co. V. Carl, 91 Ark. 97, 121 S. W. 932.

56. Southern Exp. Co. v. Meyer, 94
Ark. 103, 125 S. W. 642.

57. Unauthorized diversion by inter-
mediate carrier. — Drake v. Nashville, etc.,
R. Co., 125 Tenn. 627, 148 S. W. 214.

58. Mississippi. — Southern Pac. R. Co. v.
Lyon & Co. (Miss.), 54 So. 784, overrul-
ing suggestion of error, S. C, 99 Miss.
186, 54 "So. 728, 34 L. R. A., N. S., 234,
Ann. Cas. 1913D, 800.

Texas. — Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Crews
(Tex. Civ. App.), 139 S. W. 1049; Inter-
national, etc., R. Co. V. Wilbourne (Tex.
Civ. App.), 115 S. W. 111.

The initial carrier issued at New Or-
leans a bill of lading reciting that it had
received two cars of fruit to be trans-
ported by them and by steamers, railroaa
companies, or forwarding lines with
which it connected to Waco, Tex., with
as reasonable dispatch as its general busi-
ness permitted; the consignment being
to Waco via a named line at Houston.
Another provision limited the initial car-
rier's liability to injuries happening on
its own line. Rate Act (Act Cong. June
29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 593 [U. S.
Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1164]) § 7,
amending the interstate commerce act
(Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 20, 24 Stat.
386 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169]),
makes any common carrier receiving
property for transportation from a point
in one state to a point in another state
liable for injury caused by it or any car-
rier over whose lines the property passes,
and forbids the exemption of the initial
carrier from liability by any contract.



3333



LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.



§§ 3696-3699



is not retroactive,^^ and did not as to interstate shipments displace the previously-
existing Kansas statute (Geh. St. Kan. 1901, § 5987), prohibiting a railroad com-
pany, except as otherwise provided by regulation of the Board of Railway Com-
missioners from limiting its common-law liability as a carrier.^"

Delay in Transportation of Cattle. — Under Hepburn act (Act June 29,
1906, c. 3591, § 7, 34 Stat. 593 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1167] ), making a
carrier liable for damages to an interstate shipment caused on its own or a con-
necting line, and providing that no contract or regulation shall exempt it from
such liability, an initial carrier is liable for its own negligence or that of connect-
ing carriers resulting in delay in the transportation of cattle by reason of which
they failed to reach their destination within a reasonable time, whether they were
shipped under an oral or under a written contract attempting to limit the carrier's
liability for its own acts or delays occurring on its own line.*^^

§§ 3697-3705. Effect of State Statutes— § 3697. In General.— State

statutes prohibiting carriers from limiting their common-law liability do not apply
to a stipulation limiting the carrier's liability to safe carriage over its own lines,
since the carrier was under no obligation at common law to undertake to carry
beyond its own line.^^

§ 3698. Georgia.— The remedy afforded by Civil Code 1895, § 2298, can be
waived by special contract between the consignor and the initial railroad, and
when so waived the consignee's remedy is on the common-law liability of carriers
over whose lines the shipment is made.*^'^

§ 3699. niinois.— Rev. St. of Illinois 1874, c. 114, § 82, prohibiting carriers
from limiting their common-law liability, does not apply to contracts limiting the
liability of a carrier to its own line.*^-*



Another paragraph provides for recovery-
over by it against the carrier on whose
lines the injury occurred. Held that the
bill of lading was for a through ship-
ment from New Orleans to Waco, though
it named intermediate lines over which
the shipment was to pass, so that the in-
itial carrier could not limit its liability
to negligence on its own line. Kemendo
t: Fruit Dispatch Co. ("Tex. Civ. .'Vpp.),
131 S. W. 73.

59. Defendant, a carrier operating a
line of vessels between New York and
Colon, and a line of railroad from Colon
to Panama, contracted with plaintiff to
transport certain articles from New York
to Colon to be there delivered to a con-
necting carrier. The contract provided
that, if they were delivered to any other
carrier for transportation to the ultimate
destination, the carrier selected should
be the agent of the owner, and that the
liability of each carrier should be termi-
nated by proper delivery to the succeed-
ing carrier; that the bill of lading was
signed for the different carriers sever-
ally; that only the carrier in whose ac-
tual custody the goods were at the time
of any loss, damage, or delay should be
resi)onsiblc therefor; and that the re-
ceipt of any carrier for the goods should
be prima facie evidence of the condition
in which he received them. The contract
nanicfl a through rate, not to be prepaid,
'"It of wliich each carrier was to collect



his portion from the succeeding carrier,
the full amount to be collected by the
terminal carrier from the consignee. The
contract did not provide who should be
the carriers beyond the end of defend-
ant's route, and it selected the carrier to
continue the transportation. The con-
tract was made prior to the enactment of
the Hepburn act, making the initial car-
rier of goods for transportation from one
state to another liable for transportation
to their destination. Held, that defend-
ant_ w^as only bound to deliver at the end
of its route to some other competent car-
rier for transportation, and that there-
upon its liability ceased, as under Civ.
Code, § 2201, if a common carrier ac-
cepts freight for a place beyond its usual
route, he must, unless he stii>ulates other-
wise, deliver to some other carrier and
his responsibility thereupon ceases.
Schwartz r. Panama R. Co., 103 Pac. 19G,
15.', Cal. 742.

60. Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Rodgers, 10
N. Alex. 120, 1 13 Pac. 805.

61. Delay in transportation of cattle

Chicago, etc., R. Co. r. Miles, 02 Ark. 573,
123 vS. W. 775, 124 S. W. 1043.

62. Effect of state statutes. — Chicago,
etc., R. Co. V. Cluircii, 12 111. App. 17.

63. Kavanaugh & Co. v. Southern ]\.
Co., 120 Ga. 02, 47 S. R. 526.

64. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Cluirch, 12
111. App. 17.



§§ 3700-3/01



CARRIERS.



3334



§ 3700. Iowa. — Code, § 2074, providing that no contract shall exempt a rail-
way corporation from a liability which would have existed had no contract been
made, does not invalidate the limitation of liability in a contract by which a rail-
road company contracted to transport property from one point to another, neces-
sarily involving the use of connecting lines, and by the same instnmient provided
that it should not be liable for negligence of such connecting carriers/'-^

§ 3701. Missouri.— Under Rev. St. 1889, § 944 (Laws 1879, p. 171), Rev.
St., 1899, § 5222, a railroad company can not contract for a through shipment to
a point beyond its own line and at the same time exempt itself from liability for
negligence of the connecting carrier.'^*^' This section is not unconstitutional.'^'^
Where an initial carrier contracts for a through shipment, the connecting carriers
are regarded as its agents making it liable for their negligence, notwithstanding a
provision in a contract exempting it from liability beyond its line.*^^

Contract Limited to End of Carrier's Route.— Under Rev. St. 1899, § 5222
(Ann. St. 1906, p. 2718), making the carrier receiving the property, or the rail-
road company issuing bills of lading, liable for damage caused by the negligence
of any other carrier over whose lines the property passes, the initial carrier may
escape liability for injuries beyond its own line by agreeing to transport only to
its terminus, ^'' and it is immaterial that the intention is to ship beyond the ter-
minus of the carrier, and the bill of lading so indicates,'^ o but is liable when it
contracts to carry to a destination beyond its own line.'''^ Under Rev. St. 1899, §



65. 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.

66. State Nat. Bank v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 72 Mo. App. 82; Nenno v. St. Louis,
etc., R. Co., 105 Mo. App. 540, 80 S. W. 24.

Goods were delivered to a carrier for
shipment to a point outside of the state.
Before the shipment was made, the ship-
per inquired of the agent of the carrier
whether it carried goods to that place, and
was informed that it did. The carrier is-
sued a bill of lading which indicated the
place of destination, and which recited
that the carrier received the goods to be
forwarded subject to the rules and con-
ditions printed on the regular shipping
bills. The place of destination was not
on the carrier's line, but on the line of
another carrier, with which a' point traf-
fic arrangement existed. Held, that the
contract was for through shipment, and
under Rev. St. 1889, § 944, the initial car-
rier was liable for the negligence of the
connecting carrier causing injury to the
goods, notwithstanding a stipulation in
the bill of lading limiting the liability of
the initial carrier to its own line. West-
ern Sash, etc., Co. ?'. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., Tf. S. W. 998. 177 Mo. 641.

Live stock. — McCann v. Eddy, 133 Mo.
.'-.9, 33 S. W. 71, 35 L. R. A. 110.

67. Marshall, etc.. Grain Co. v. Kansas,
etc., R. Co., 75 S. W. 638, 176 Mo. 480,
98 Am. St. Rep. 508.

68. Blacknier. etc.. Pipe Co. v. Mobile,
etc., R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 479, 119 S. W. 1.

An initial carrier's contract to transport
from a point on its line to C. via a cer-
tain connecting carrier "at" K., an inter-
mediate point bej'ond the initial carrier's



line, is a contract for through shipment,
making the initial carrier liable for neg-
ligence of a connecting carrier in pre-
venting exercise of the shipper's right to
divert the shipment at K. by taking the
car over another route, notwithstanding a
provision in the contract exempting it
from liability for connecting carrier's neg-
kgence. Lord, etc., Co. v. Texas, etc., R.
Co. (Mo. App.),_1.34 S. W. 111.

69. Contract limited to end of carrier's
route. — Crockett v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.
(Mo. App.), 126 S. W. 243.

70. State Nat. Bank v. Chicago, etc., R.
Co., 72 Mo. App. 82.

A contract made in New York for the
transportation of fish from New York to
Kansas City over the lines of two con-
necting carriers, expressly stipulating that
the fish should be carried by the initial
carrier to the end of its own line, and
that such carrier should not be responsi-
ble for a loss occurring beyond its own
line, was valid. McLendon v. Wabash R.
Co., 95 S. W. 943, 119 Mo. App. 128.

71. Hardin Grain Co. v. Missouri Pac.
R. Co., 96 S. W. 681, 120 Mo. App. 203.

Under the statute of Missouri (Rev. St.
]889, § 944), making a carrier liable for
its negligence or that of a connecting car-
rier, a carrier contracting for a through
shipment beyond its own line cannot ex-
empt itself from liability by a limitation
of liability in the bill of lading to loss
occurring on its own line. Missouri Pac.
R. Co. V. Baden, 102 Pac. 502, 80 Kan.
405.

Where a carrier issued a bill of lading
in Missouri for a through shipment be-
yond its own line to a point in Arkansas,
it could not exempt itself from liability



3335 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. § 3701

5222 (Ann, St. 1906, p. 2718), a carrier receiving property for transportation
over its own line and other lines need not contract to carry beyond its own
line ; but, where in the main clause of the contract it undertakes to carry to
destination, it can not limit its statutory liability by exceptions set out in subse-
quent clauses, but where it specially contracts in the main clause to carry only
to the end of its line, its liability extends no further.'^- Missouri Rev. St. 1899,
§ 5222 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 2718), impliedly allows an initial carrier to restrict
]ts liability as insurer to its own line, notwithstanding the main purpose of the
3ct is to make it liable for negligence occurring on a connecting line, and makes
a carrier issuing a bill of lading in the state liable for damage to property caused
bv its negligence or the negligence of a connecting carrier.'''^

What Constitutes an Agreement to Carry beyond Carrier's Line. — A
bill of lading which is blank as to the point to which it was agreed to transport
the goods though their destination is beyond the receiving carrier's line, which
further stipulates for the nonliability of the carrier beyond its line, is an agree-
ment to carry beyond its line, so as to invalidate the stipulation against lia-
bility.'^"' Where the contract with defendant for transportation to the place of
destination over its line and other connecting lines stipulated that the exception
fiom liability made by such other carriers of the goods should operate in the
carriage of them, respectively, and defendant received pay for the transporta-
tion of the goods for the whole route, and its soliciting agent solicited the ship-
ment, and designated the connecting lines over which it would be continued to
the place of destination, it was liable for a loss of the goods occasioned by an-
other carrier's negligence, though the contract provided that defendant should
he liable only for loss or damage happening while the goods were on its own
road."^

Necessity for Stipulation. — Where an agent of a railroad company receives
goods for transportation, and fails to limit his company's liability to liability
for negligence on its own line, and issues a bill of lading for shipment over the
line of a connecting carrier, the right to limit the liability of his own company
'o negligence on its own line is lost, and the provisions of the bill of lading pro-
hibiting the agent from contracting for shipment beyond defendant's line be-
comes a nullity.'''*' Where a carrier receives freight, and issues a bill of lading
lo a destination beyond its line, it is liable for the negligence of connecting car-
riers, unless the contract stipulates that the carrier is only to transport the
shipment to the end of its line, and a stipulation that the initial carrier is to be
rclie\-ed of resi)onsibility beyond its line is unavailing.'^'''

Authority of Agent of Carrier to Contract for Through Transporta-
tion. — .\ provision in a carrier's bill of lading prohibiting its agent from con-
tacting for the delivery of goods beyond its own route is a nullity: the agent
being required to receive the goods for transportation, though entitled to limit
his emplover's liability to its own line.'^'^

tor a conversion rjf the property by a con- 75. Kcklcs v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 72

iiectinj:^ carrier hy a provision in the bill ^'^- ''^PP- 2i)().

limiting its lialjility to its own line. Mar- 76. Necessity for stipulation.— Miller v.

shall, etc.. Grain Co. v. Kansas, etc., R. Mis-^otiri, etc., M. Co., 157 Mo. Apn. r>:?S.

Co., 75 S. W. (V.iH, 17r, Mo. 4K0, 98 Am. I-'^^ S- W. 90;3; vSteckdauI) 7'. Missouri, etc.,

St. Rep .508 1^- Co. (Mo. App.). 138 S. W. 9()l.

72. Simmons Hardware Co. v. St. Louis, , J Va"' ^'r't ^f ^'iV '\m ,^^S"p'
< ff- i^ rv. 1 ifi A/f^ A^.^ ion ion c \\T H^ Mo. App. 47h; Jiushnell v. Wabash R.
. »r . R. Co.. 140 Mo. App. 130, 120 S. W. ^o.. 94 S. W. 1001. 118 Mo. App. f,18; Rat-

„„ „, , , • ^. w •, '•"" ^'- Q»''icy. etc., R. Co., 94 S. W. 1005,

/3. Mackmer. etc., I'lpe Co. 7'. Mol.ilc, ,,8 Mo. App. r,44; McT.endon 7'. Wal)ash

■;<■.. K. (o.. 119 S. W. I, i;!7 Mo. App. |. Cn., 9.-. S. W. 943. 119 M... App. 12S.



78. Authority of agent of carrier to con-
act for through transportation. — M

all Mcilieiiic Co. 7'. Cliica.tio, etc.,
Kansas, etc., K. Co., 74 Mo. App. 81. Co., !:.'(i Mo. App. 15.5, 101 S. W. 478.



'/4. What constitutes an agreement to tract for through transportation. -Mar
carry beyond carrier's line. .Marshall t. shall Mciliiinc Co. 7'. Ciiic;i.t|o, etc



§§ 3702-3704 carriers. 3336

§ 3702. Nebraska. — Const. Neb. art. 11, § 4, declaring that "the liability
of railroad corporations as common carriers shall nc^ver be limited," does not
affect a contract limiting the receiving carrier's liability to loss occurring on its
own lines. '^'^

§ 3703. South Carolina.— Under South Carolina, Civ. Code 1902, §2176,
an initial carrier sued for injury to goods in transportation may, under an agree-
ment in the bill of lading that no company shall be liable for any loss not oc-
curring on its line, exonerating itself from liability by showing delivery of the
goods to a connecting carrier, and an instruction holding it liable on whatever
road the injurs' occurred is erroneous. ^° The initial corporation may discharge
itself from liability by producing a receipt in writing for the article from the
corporation to whom it was its duty to deliver the articles, includes delivery by
the initial carrier to a steamship line.^^ Where, in a suit for loss of goods
against the initial carrier, it produced a receipt from the connecting carrier, in
which the destination was different from that given in the bill of lading, the
initial carrier could not, if this mistake caused the loss, claim advantage of a
stipulation in the bill of lading that it should not be liable for loss not occurring
on its portion of the route, nor of Civ. Code 1902, § 2176, discharging from
liability an initial carrier producing a receipt for the goods from the first con
necting carrier.''^ Under South Carolina Civ. Code 1902, § 1710, imposing a
liability on a carrier for loss of goods shipped under a contract providing
for transportation over the lines of two or more connecting carriers, where
the responsibility of each or any of them ceases on delivery of the
goods to the connecting carrier "in good order," a bill of lading limiting the
carrier's liability to injuries or loss of goods on its own line, and providing that
the carrier's responsibility should cease when it delivered the goods to the next
carrier "in the same order in which the delivering carrier received them," con-
stitutes a contract in effect to deliver to the contracting carrier "in good order,"
and is therefore within the statute. ^^

§ 3704. Texas.— Under Texas (Rev. Stat. 331a, 331b), where the initial car-
rier contracts for through shipment, it is liable for damages inflicted by its con-
necting carrier, no matter what restrictions are inserted in the shipping con-
tract,^'* and none of the succeeding carriers can by contract limit its liability to
damages occurring on its line.^^ But it was not the purpose of the articles to
deny the right of one or more connecting carriers to execute separate and inde-
pendent contracts limiting its liability to its own line, the statute provided for
joint liability where the contract of through carriage was recognized, acquiesced
in, or acted upon by the carriers.^'' Where a carrier accepts freight from an-

79. Miller Grain, etc., Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Turner, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 532,
R. Co., 138 Mo. 658, 40 S. W. 894. 94 S. W. 214. The case of Houston, etc.,

80. Whittle v. Southern Railway. 88 S. R. Co. v. Mayes, 44 Tex. Civ. App. 31, 97
C. 172, 70 S. E. 456. S. W. 318; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Short

81. Chartrand v. Southern Railway, 67 (Tex. Civ. App.), 51 S. W. 261, affirmed
S. E. 741, 85 S. C. 479. in 93 Tex. 685, no op.

82. Chartrand v. Southern Railway, 85 Under Rev. St. 1895, art. 331b, provid-
S. C. 479, 67 S. E. 741. ing that for any damages to freight any-

83. Moody v. Southern Railway, 79 S. where in a through transportation be-
C. 297. 60 S. E. 711. tween points in the state over connecting

84. Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Botts, 22 lines either carrier shall be liable, neither
Tex. Civ. App. 609, 55 S. W. 514. See can by contract limit his liability to dam-
Texas, etc., R. Co. V. Bigham (Tex. Civ. ages occurring on its line. Gulf, etc., R.
App.), 47 S. W. 814, affirmed in 93 Tex. Co. v. Terry (Tex. Civ. App.), 89 S. W.
673, no op.; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Randle, 792.

18 Tex. Civ. App. 348, 44 S. W. 603. The case of Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Terry

85. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Terry (Tex. Civ. (Tex. Civ. App.), 89 S. W. 792, in effect
App.), 89 S. W. 792. holds that as to domestic shipments fhere

86. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, 97 can be no contract against joint liability;
Tex. 25, 75 S. W. 486; San Antonio, etc., "and possibly it is not necessary for us



3337



LIMITATION OF LIABILITY,



§ 3704



other line, but requires from the shipper a separate shipping contract, exempt-
ing from HabiHty for damages occurring on any other line of road, but re-
spects so much of the through contract originally made with the initial carrier
as relates to the through rate, it is not a connecting line, within Rev. St. arts.
331a, 331b, making all carriers connecting lines which recognize, acquiesce in,
or act on a contract for through carriage, and is not liable for any damage to
the freight not occurring on its own line.^"

Under Texas Rev. St. art. 278, where a common carrier contract to carry
goods, not only over his own route, but over connecting lines, he can not con-
tract that his responsibility may terminate at the end of his own line. He will
still be held responsible for the negligence, not only of himself and his servants,
but of the connecting lines, they being considered his agents for carrying out
the particular contract. ^^

Interstate Contracts. — On interstate shipments under the statutes of Texas
the initial and succeeding carriers may limit their liability to damage occurring
on their respective lines. ^^ And in such case where there is no agency or part-



to criticise that case or to express any
view contrary to the doctrine there an-
nounced, as this case can clearly rest
upon the provisions of the statute, for tlie
reason, as above stated, that it does not
appear that the Santa Fe transported the
shipment upon any separate contract."
San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Turner, 42
Tex. Civ. App. 532, 94 S. W. 214.

87. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Short (Tex. Civ.
App.), 51 S. W. 261.

88. Texas Exp. Co. v. Dupree, 2 Texas
App. Civ. Cas., § 318.

89. Interstate contracts. — Order, 85 S.
W. 854. modified in Gulf, etc., R. Co. z'.
McCampbell (Tex. Civ. App.), 85 S. W.
1158; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 99 S.
W. 1125, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 208; McCarn
V. International, etc., R. Co., 84 Tex. 352,
19 S. W. 547, 31 Am. St. Rep. 51, 16 L.
R. A. 39; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Grossman,



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 44 of 214)