Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 45 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 45 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

11 Tex. Civ. App. 622, 33 S. W. 290;
Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 44 Tex.
C!V. App. 299, 97 S. W. 836; Ft. Worth,
etc., R. Co. V. Wright, 24 Tex. Civ. App.
291, 58 S. W. 846; Cane Hill Cold Storage,
etc., Co. V. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. (Tex.
Civ. App.), 95 S. W. 751; Texas, etc., R.
Co. V. Byers Bros. (Tex. Civ. App.), 73
S. W. 427; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Halsell,
36 Tex. Civ. App. 522, 81 S. W. 1243;
Texas Mexican R. Co. v. Gallagher (Tex.
Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 97: San .Antonio,
etc., R. Co. r. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.).
57 S. W. 883.

On a shipment of goods from a point
without to one within the state, a provi-
sion in a through bill of lading is valid,
which limits the lial)ility to the carrier by
whom the damage is occasioned. Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Adams, 78 Tex. 372, 14 S.
W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56.

Effect of art. 331, Sayles' Rev. Civ. Stat.
— Texas, etc., K. Co. v. Berry, :i I 'l\x. Civ.
App. 3, 71 S. W. 326; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.
Baird, 75 Tex. 256, 12 S. W. 530; Ft.
Worth, etc.. R. Co. v. Williams, 77 Tex.
121, 13 S. W. 637; McCarn v. Interna-
tional, etc.. R. Co., 84 Tex. 352, 19 S.

W. 547, 31 Am. St. Rep. 51, 16 L. R. A.
39; Ft. Worth, etc.. R. Co. v. Fuller, 3
Tex. Civ. App. 340, 22 S. W. 1006; Hous-
ton, etc., R. Co. v. Groves, 48 Tex. Civ.
App. 45, 106 S. W. 416.

Effect of arts. 331, 331b, Sayles' Ann.
Civ. St. 1897.— San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v.
Turner, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 532, 94 S. W.
214; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Groves, 48
Tex. Civ. App. 45, 106 S. W. 416.

Sayles' Rev. Civ. St. 1897, art. 331b, re-
lating to the liability of connecting com-
mon carriers for goods received by one
of them on a contract for through car-
riage between points in the state, and
making them the agents of each other
and of the shipper, and making the
through bill of lading or proof that one
of them had received the freight prima
facie evidence of their agency, notwith-
standing any stipulations by them to the
contrary, has no application to an inter-
state shipment; but in such case each con-
necting carrier may by contract limit its
liability to such loss as may occur on its
own line, and no recovery can be had for
loss occurring on the lines of connecting
carriers, in the absence of allegation and
proof of some joint traffic arrangement
hetween the several connecting carriers.
Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Groves, 48 Tex.
Civ. App. 45, 106 S. W. 416.

The acts 1899, p. 214, c. 125, is entitled
"An act to prescribe the parties to and
venue of suits against railroad corpora-
tions * * * over whose * * * lines,
or parts thereof, any freight * * * has
been carrier"; did not affect the validity
of a contract limiting a carrier's ]ial)ility
with reference to an interstate shipment
to its own line, nor afTect the rights of
the parties thereunder. Missouri, etc., R.
Co. 7'. l-.lliott, 99 Tex. 286, 89 S. W. 767.

The main purpose of the legislature in
enacting the act of May 26, 1899, was to
fix the venue of suits against railroad com-
panies which were engaged in operating
any part of their roads in the state, and
Had agents in llio state, and also to an-

§§ 3704-3706



nership between them, they are not jointly Hable for what happens on either or
both lines. '"'^ Thus where the initial carrier received goods in New York which
were not delivered in Texas until nearly three months later, while the usual
time was 20 days, a connecting carrier was not liable for the delay; there being
no showing on what line the delay occurred.'-'^

Intermediate Carrier Requiring Separate Contract. — Where a carrier
accepts freight from another line, Imt requires from the shipper a separate ship-
ping contract, exempting it from liability for damages occurring on any other
line of road, but respects 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 Hepburn Act. — See, ante, "Under Hepburn Act," § 3696.

§ 3705. Virginia.— Under the Va. Code 1887. § 1295, providing that a
common carrier shall insure safe carriage to the destination of all freight shipped
on its line, unless by contract it limits its liability to injuries happening on its
own line, a bill of lading signed by the shipper which limits the liability of the
carrier to damage arising on its own line is a valid contract. ^^

§§ 3706-3711. What Amounts to Contract to Carry beyond Car-
rier's Own Line — § 3706. In General. — An initial carrier which has under-
taken to transport a shipment from one point to another over connecting lines,
witliout expressly limiting its liability, is regarded as contracting for the safe
deliver}^ at the point of destination,^'* but where the contract limits liability to
loss occurring on its own line or to safe delivery to a connecting line, the con-
tract is not one for through carriage. ^■'^ Thus, where a through bill of lading is

thorize the shipper to join in one action
all railroads which had participated in the
transportation of the freight, whether as
partners, joint contractors, or under a
contract or separate contracts, limiting the
liability of each to its own line. Missouri,
etc., R. Co. V. Elliott, 99 Tex. 286, 89 S.
W. 767.

It is apparent from the language of the
act that it was not intended in any way
to affect the rights of the parties under
the contract made between them, but, in
one action, to enforce such contract ac-
cording to its terms against all of the
participants in the transportation of the
freight. Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Elliott,
99 Tex. 286, 89 S. W. 767.

90. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Byers Bros.
CTex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 427.

Where the bill of lading of an interstate
Ghipment limited the liability of each car-
rier to such injury as might occur on its
cwn line, a connecting carrier, in the ab-
sence of proof of partnership between it
and the initial carrier, was not liable for
£,-oods not received by it. Texas, etc., R.
Co. V. Weisman & Co., 47 Tex. Civ. App.
S19, 105 S. W. 45; Goldstein v. Sherman,
etc., R. Co., 25 Tex. Civ. App. 365, 61 S.
W. 336; Texas, etc.. R. Co. v. Byers Bros.
(Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 427; Gulf, etc.,
R. Co. V. Grififith (Tex. Civ. Aon i. -M S.
W. 362; Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly (Tex.
Civ. Aop.), 74 S. W. 343.

91. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Weisman &

Co., 47 Tex. Civ. App. 319, 105 S. W. 45.

92. Intermediate carrier requiring sep-
arate contract. — Ou'f, etc.. R. Co. -v. Short
(Tex. Civ. Aop.), 51 S. W. L>61.

93. Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Reeves, 97
Va. 2S4, 33 S. E. 606.

94. What amounts to contract to carry
beyond carrier's own line. — Alabama, etc.,
R. Co. V. Mount Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173,
4 So. 356.

95. A bill of lading with a condition
limiting liability to the initial carrier's
'ine, if goods are destined beyond, on no-
tice to next carrier of readiness to de-
liver to it, is not evidence of a through
contract. Harris v. Grand Trunk R. Co.,
15 R. I. 371, 5 Atl. 305.

A receipt by an initial carrier of freight
which recited that the goods were received
in good order for the consignee, subject
to bill of lading, and provided that the
property received on the dray ticket was
subject to the conditions of the bill of
lading, and a bill of lading which con-
tracted for the carriage of the freight to
the consignee or to a connecting carrier,
and limited liability for loss to that oc-
curring on its own line; do not establish
a contract for through carriage. Simmons
Hardware Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.,
:'40 Mo. App. 130, 120 S. W. 663.

A receipt for goods, given by the De-
troit, etc., R. Co., stated that the goods
were "addressed to H. & S., Agent, New
York, to be sent by the Detroit, etc., R.



§ 3706

given and through freight charged to the destination, by an initial carrier receiving
a shipment to a point beyond its own line, these conditions are controlling ele-
ments in the contract and make it one for through or entire transportation ; ^^
so, also, where such contracts contain an exemption for loss by fire through to

Letter Offering to Transport Over Road and Connecting Lines. —
A letter from the superintendent of a railroad offering to receive freight and
transport it over his road and over the road of connecting lines, is, on accept-
ance of the offer by the person to whom it is addressed, a special contract for
the carriage of freight over all the roads mentioned. "^^

The mere fact that the consignee's address is incorporated in the
receipt in general by the initial carrier merely for the purpose of identification,
where the contract limits the liability to the carrier's own line, does not render
the contract one for through transportation."'^

Unauthorized Use of Ileceipts Furnished by Shipper. — A fact that a
station agent without authority used blank receipts furnished by the shipper,
which contained a promise to forward and deliver the freight at the end of the
loute, instead of those furnished by the carrier which limited its liability to its
own line, does not constitute the contract one for through transportation. ^

Part of Goods Put on Cars Where Second Road Begins. — Where goods
received at one place are to be transported over several distinct lines of rail-
road to another and distant one, and the common carrier owning the first road

Co., subject to their tariff, and under the
conditions stated on the other side, care
Swift Sure Line, Albany [goods de-
scribed], through to New York, at $1.95
per barrel"; and on the other side was
a notice, among others, "that all goods
addressed to consignees resident beyond
the places at which the company have sta-
tions * * * ^vill be forwarded to their
destination by public carriers or other-
wise, as opportunity may ofifer, * * *
but that the delivery of the goods by the
company will l)e considered as complete,
and its responsibility will be considered
to have ceased, when such carriers shall
have received the goods for further con-
veyance. And the company hereby
further give notice that they will not be
responsible for any loss, damage, or de-
tention that may happen to goods so sent
by them, if such loss, damage, or deten-
tion occurs beyond their said limits."
Held, that these conditions were a part
of the receipt; and that it did not import
a contract to carry the goods to New
York; but constituted a valid limitation of
the lialjility of tlic company. Detroit, etc.,
K. Co. V. Farmers', etc., P>ank, 20 Wis.

96. Defendant gave plaintiff a through
lill f)f larling and received tlirougli freight
on sheep sliipped by plaintiff over defend-
ant's road from Cisco, Tex., to Chicago,
III. A special contract l)y the parties,
stipulating "that, in case the live stock
mentioned herein is to be transported
over the line or lines of any other railroad
or steamboat company, the i)arty of the
first part | defenrlaiU | shall l)e released
from liability of every kinrl after said live
stock shall have left its road, and tlic iiarly

of the second part [plaintiff] so expressly
stipulates and agrees; the understanding
of both parties hereto being that the party
of the first part shall not be held or
deemed liable for anything beyond the
line of the Texas A Pacific Railway Com-
pany, excepting to protect the through
rate herein.'" Held, that as, by the con-
vract, the sheep were to be shipped to
Chicago, and a through bill of lading was
given and through freight charged to that
point, these conditions were controlling
elements in the contract, and, having
agreed to these, defendant could not limit
damages on its connecting lines. Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Scrivener, 2 Texas App. Civ.
Cas., § 328.

97. A steamboat bill of lading for the
delivery of goods at a certain point, speci-
fying the rate of freight to a more distant
point, and an e.xeniption from liability for
loss by fire "through to destination," is
a through contract, and binds the carrier
to deliver at the latter point. Woodward
V. Illinois Cent. R. Co., Fed. Cas. No.
18,00(), 1 Biss. 403; S. C, Fed. Cas. No.
18,007, 1 P.iss. (ti.

98. Letter offering to transport over
road and connecting lines. — Fast Ten-
nessee, etc., R. Co. V. Montgomery, 4t
Ga. 278.

99. Consignee's address incorporated in
receipt signed by initial carrier merely for
I-urpose of identification. — Wright v.
Bou;.;ht()n (\. ^'.), W.l I'.arb. 5()1.

1. Unauthorized use by station agent of
blank receipts furnished by shipper in-
stead of those furnished by railroad.^
Burroughs v. Noruicli, clc, 1\. Co., 100
Mass. 2t;, 1 Am. \\v\). 78.

§§ 3706-3707



vmdertakes to carry goods over the entire line, part of the goods being put aboard
the cars on its hne, and a part to be put on at its termination and where the next
road begins, the fare asked and agreed to be paid being, however, the fare usually
paid for the carriage over the whole line, and the contract being for transporta-
tion over the whole line, and not carriage to the end of the first line and then
for delivering to the carrier owning the next road, and for carriage by him, the
fact that a part of the goods were put on the cars only where the second road
begins will not exonerate the owner of the first road from liability for their loss.^

§§ 3707-3708. Collection of Charge for Entire Distance— § 3707.
By Initial Carrier. — In the absence of specific stii)ulations on the subject, the
acceptance of goods by a carrier for shipment to their ultimate destination over
its own and connecting lines, and receipt by the initial carrier of the charges for
the whole distance, may involve an undertaking on the part of such carrier to
transport them the whole distance and deliver them to the consignee, and so
make it responsible for the default of connecting lines; but, when the bill of
lading contains explicit provisions on the subject, these must be regarded and
given effect, in the absence of averments and evidence that would authorize a
court to ignore or set aside such contract of shipment/'' Where the shipper is
aware at the time of shipment that the bill of lading contains provisions limiting
the liability of the initial carrier to its own lines, and that the destination of the
goods is beyond the lines of such initial carrier, the mere acceptance by such
initial carrier of the freight charges for the whole distance to the point of des-
tination is not enough to warrant a disregard of such limiting provisions,-* and
the fact that the shipper failed to notice the terms of the bill of lading is not
enough to warrant a departure from its terms.-'' Aliter in Missouri,'^ Nebraska,'^
and Texas. ^

2. Part of goods put on cars where sec-
end road begins.— Ogdenshurg, etc., R.
Co. V. Pratt (U. S.), 22 Wall. 123, 22 L.
Ed. 827, 49 How. Prac. 84.

3. By initial carrier. — Stevens v. Lake
Shore, etc., R. Co., 20 O. C. C. 41, 11 O.
C. D. 168.

4. Massachusetts. — Washburn, etc.. Mfg.
Co. V. Providence, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass.

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

Tennessee. — The fact that two lines are
connected, and for their mutual conven-
ience collect freight for each other upon
goods delivered for transmission over
both lines, will not make the one responsi-
ble for losses occurring beyond its own
line, unless it has contracted so to do.
East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Brumley,
73 Tenn. (5 Lea) 401, 6 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 356: Telegraph Co. 7'. Munford, 87
Tenn. 189. 10 S. W. 318, 2 L. R. A. 601.

Shipper's knowledge that railroad ended
at intermediate point — Accident on
steamer. — Goods were delivered to a rail-
road company to be carried to New York,
and the freight was paid to it for the en-
tire distance; that the goods were re-
ceipted for as "for transportation;" but
that the shipper knew that the railroad
terminated at an intermediate point, where
the freight was to be carried the rest of
the way by a steamer of another carrier;
and that the freight money was to be di-
vided between the carriers. In an action

against the railroad for damages to the
goods, happening upon the steamer, it
was held that defendant was not a com-
mon carrier beyond the end of its road,
and was not liable. Washburn, etc., Mfg.
Co. V. Providence, etc., R. Co., 113 Mass,

5. Failure of shipper to notice terms of
biU of lading. — Stevens v. Lake Shore,
etc., R. Co., 11 O. C. D. 168, 20 O. C.
C. 41.

6. Missouri and Nebraska. — Where a
railway company receives goods for ship-
ment beyond its line, and collects the en-
tire charge for transportation, it assumes
the responsibility for safe carriage over
every part of the route, and such liabil-
ity can not be limited by express con-
tract. Marshall, etc., Grain Co. v. Kan-
sas, etc.. R. Co., 176 Mo. 480, 75 S. W.
638, 98 Am. St. Rep. 508; Popham v. Bar-
nard, 77 Mo. App. 619; Jones v. St. Louis,
etc., R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 653; Redmon v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Mo. App. 68.

7. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Western, etc.,
Grain Co., 2 Neb. 748,. 90 N. W. 205.

8. A contract whereby a railroad com-
pany agreed to transport a number of
carloads of cattle from Talpa, Tex., a
certain distance over its own line, and de-
liver same to its connecting lines for
transportation to Chicago, at a fixed rate
per carload for the whole distance, is a
through bill of lading. Gulf, etc., R. Co.
v. Vaughn, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., § 183,
16 S. W. 775.



§ 3707

Contract Fixing Price for Entire Carriage. — Under the common law, in-
dependently of statute, where a common carrier receives property for carriage
beyond its own line, issuing a through bill of lading therefor, specifying the
freight for through carriage, it makes its connecting carriers its agents, and is
responsible to the shipper for any loss or damage to such property either on
its own or the connecting lines, which Hability it can not limit by contract.^

Contract to Deliver to Succeeding Carrier. — Where a common carrier
contracts for the transportation of freight over its road, and for the dehvery
thereof to another carrier to be forwarded to a connecting line, the fact that
the contract fixes the price for the entire carriage,^*^ gives the shipper a through
rate,^^ or guarantees the freight on the connecting line,^- does not make the
contract a through contract ; but constitutes a several contract between the
shipper and each carrier,i-^ particularly where the bill of lading specifies the
terminus of the initial carrier's line as the destination and contains directions as
to deliverv to the succeeding' carrier. ^^

9. Contract fixing price for entire car-
riage. — Smeltzer v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co.,
158 Fed. 649.

10. Contract to deliver to succeeding
carrier. — Missouri. — Bennitt v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 656.

Where a carrier by bill of lading agrees
to carry goods to the destination if on its
load, or, if the destination is not on its
road and the company guarantees a
through rate to destination, then it agrees
to deliver to the other carrier, but does
not agree to carry to any point beyond
its own line, or to be responsible beyond
its own line, and guarantees a certain rate
to a point beyond its own line, the con-
tract is one for through transportation,
and the carrier can not limit its liability
for negligence of the connecting carrier.
Central American Steamship Co. v. Mo-
bile, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 128 S. W.

Xezi' York. — ^tna Ins. Co. r. Wheeler,
49 N. Y. 616; S. C, 5 Lans. 480.

Wisconsin. — A contract for shipment of
goods beyond the line of the receiving
carrier, in which it guaranties the cost of
transportation to their destination, but
limits its liability as a carrier to its own
lines, is not a through contract, and be-
yond its own line the carrier is simply a
forwarding agent. Schneider v. Evans,
25 Wis. 241, .'5 Am. Rep. 56.

11. Effect of giving through rate. — Tlie
shipper delivered freight to defendant
rsilroad company, consigned to a point
beyond its line, and received a bill of lad-
ing, in which it was stated that the lum-
ber was received for transportation to its
destination, if upon such comi)any's line
of road, otherwise, to the place where it
should be received by the connecting car-
rier, upon the terms and conditions ap-
pearing upon the back of the I)ill of lad-
ing. Among such conditions was one
providing that the railroad in forward-
ing the lumber from the point where it
left its road, was to be held as a for-
warder only. It was held that the mere
fact that the company gave tlic shijjpcr
a tlirr)ugh rate for freight would n<il, in

view of the terms expressed in the bill
of lading, upon which it received the
freight, make the railroad company lia-
ble as a carrier beyond its own line. Mc-
Eacheran v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 101
Mich. 264, 59 N. W. 612.

12. The fact that the shipper of goods
consigned to a point beyond the end of
the first carrier's route guarantied the
freight on the connecting line does not
affect the special agreement with the first
carrier that the latter's Hability shall be
limited to its own line. Illinois Cent. R.
Co. V. Frankenberg, 54 111. 88, 5 Am.
Rep. 92.

13. A bill of lading for goods to be car-
ried over several connecting lines, by
which the initial carrier undertakes, for
itself and the connecting carriers named,
"severally and not jointly," that each car-
rier on the line shall safely carry and de-
liver the goods received to the next suc-
ceeding carrier, until they reach their desti-
nation, expressly stipulating tliat the
liability of each as to the goods destined
beyond its own line shall terminate on
their delivery to the ne.xt succeeding car-
rier, and that in case of loss or damage
to the goods the carrier in whose actual
custody they are at the time of such loss
or damage shall alone be responsible
therefor, although it names a through
rate, constitutes a several contract be-
tween the owner of the goods and each
carrier accepting them thereunder in tfce
course of shipment, and renders any car-
rier in whose custody they are at the
time of loss or damage liable directly to
such owner therefor, as carrier, and not
merely for negligence as agent of the ini-
tial carrier. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. 7'.
Fairbanks & Co., 90 Fed. 467, 2?, C. C. A.

14. A bill of lading for transportation
of goods from one city to another, in the
same state, and for delivery at the lat-
ter city to the consignee or a connecting
carrier, is not a contract for carriage be-
yond that place, though it may guaranty
a tlirongh rate of freight 1o a town in
anoilicr state, wliicli is naineil in it ;is the

§§ 3708-3712



§ 3708. By Succeeding Carrier. — The fact that a connecting carrier re-
ceives and hauls a car of goods and collects the charges does not render it jointly
liable for damages to the goods with the company that executed the bill of lad-
ing, nor does it operate as a ratification by it of the contract for shipment.^-' An
arrangement between two carriers that each should receive traffic from the other,
and one collect the entire toll, does not create such an agency or relation between
them as to render one liable for loss by the other.^''

§ 3709. Agreement to Forward Car to Destination. — An agreement by
a railway company to forward cars which were loaded on its line of road, and
on lines connecting with it, and to deliver the cars thus loaded and forwarded
to the agent of the shipper at a point beyond its terminus, is in effect a contract
that the freight shall go through upon those cars over the entire route without
change. 1'

§ 3710. Car Forwarded Over Connecting Line by Order of Con-
signee. — Where the consignee of freight, on its arrival at the destination named
in the bill of lading, directs the car forwarded over connecting lines, and by
transfer of the original bill of lading the shipment is continued, all the carriers
treating the consignment as a single shipment, the transportation may be con-
sidered as a single shipment, in an action for damages to the freight. ^'^

§ 3711. Effect of Through Waybill. — -Where a written contract issued

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 45 of 214)