Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 46 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 46 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

by a carrier for the shipment of cattle to a point on its line limits its liability to
damage accruing on its own line, a waybill issued by it for the guidance of its
employees, which denominated plaintifif's shipment as a through live stock way-
bill to a point on a connecting line, via the point on defendant's line specified
in the written contract, did not change or aft'ect the terms of such written con-
tract.^-' The waybill afforded no proof of partnership or agency between de-
fendant and the connecting line.-''

§ 3712. Losses Which May Be Limited. — Loss by Negligence. — It has

been held in Missouri, -^ Ohio, - Texas -^ and Kansas.-^ that an initial carrier

ultimate destination of the goods. Ben-
iiitt V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 46 Mo. App.

A bill of lading was given at M. for
goods consigned to parties at O., that
being the termination of the carrier's
line; but on the margin of it there was
an address to parties at B., the freight
charges to B. being paid in full. The car-
rier had connections, and an agreement
for the transportation of its freight to
that place. Held, that the bill of lading
undertook to deliver the goods at O. only,
to be forwarded, ^tna Ins. Co. v.
Wheeler (N. Y.), 5 Lans. 480.

15. By succeeding carrier. — Houston,
etc., R. Co. r. Groves, 106 S. W. 410, 4S
lex. Civ. App. 45; Miller v. Texas, etc.,
R. Co., 83 Tex. 518, 18 S. W. 954.

16. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Groves, 48
Tex. Civ. App. 45, 106 S. W. 416.

17. Agreement to forward car to des-
tination. — Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Alli-
son. 59 Tex. 193.

18. Car forwarded over connecting line
by orders of consignee. — Missouri, etc., R.
Co. t'. Mazzie, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 295,
6S S. W. 56.

19. Effect of through waybill. — San
Antonio, etc., R. Co. Z'. Barnett, 27 Tex.
Civ. App. 498, 66 S. W. 474.

20. San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Bar-
nett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 498, 66 S. W. 474.

21. Blackmer, etc.. Pipe Co. v. Mobile,
etc., R. Co., 137 Mo. App. 497, 119 S. W.
1; Central American Steamship Co. V.
Mobile, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 128 S.
W. 822; Funsten Dried Fruit, etc., Co. V.
Toledo, etc., R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 426,
143 S. W. 839.

22. Where a railroad company con-
tracts, for transportation of goods over
other railroads forming with its own a
continuous line, any stipulation in the
contract, or notice to the other party, to
the effect that the company will not be
liable for losses or damages occasioned
l)y negligence or fault while the goods are
upon its road is against public policy and
void, equally as in case of transportation
exclusively upon its own road. Cincin-
nati, etc., R. Co. V. Pontius, 19 O. St. 221,
2 Am. Rep. 391, followed in Attorney
General v. Hobart, 11 O. Dec. 166, 8 N-
P. 246.

23. International, etc., R. Co. v. Camp-
bell, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 509, 20 S. W. 845.
See Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Eddins, 7 Tex.
Civ. App. 116, 26 S. W. 161; Gulf, etc., R.
Co. V. \'aughn, 4 Texas App. Civ. Cas., §
182, 16 S. W. 775.

24. Loss by negligence. — The St. Louis,



§ 3712

which contracts for transportation of a shipment over other roads forming a
continuous hne, can not restrict its liahiHty for the negligence of itself or its
connecting carriers. But an agent of a railroad company, while bound to re-
ceive goods for transportation consigned to a point beyond the terminus of the
road, has the right to limit his company's liability to liability for negligence on
its own line,-^ notwithstanding a state statute making a carrier receiving goods
for carriage beyond its route liable for the negligence of a connecting carrier.^'"'

Loss from Delay in Delivery— Delay at Connecting Points. — As a cassr
lier at common law was under no liability beyond its own line unless it under-
took to carr}^ beyond its own line, Kentucky Const. § 196, providing that no
common carrier shall be permitted to contract for relief from its common-law
liability has no application where a carrier receiving live stock to be transported
to a point beyond its own line stipulates that its liability as carrier shall cease
at its terminus when the stock is ready to be delivered to the connecting carrier,
and such stipulation is therefore valid.-"

Refusal or Inability of Connecting Line to Receive. — A common carrier,
receiving live stock for transportation over its own and connecting lines, may,
by contract, limit its liability for any delays at connecting points caused by the
refusal or inability of the connecting line to take charge of the stock after re-
ceiving notice of their arrival on the connecting track ; but it is the plain duty

Kansas City & Northern Railway Com-
pany, owning and operating a line of rail-
road from Kansas City to Mexico, and
there connecting with another road run-
ning to Chicago, made a contract to "for-
ward" certain cattle from Kansas City to
Chicago, stipulating therein that the ship-
per should "take care of the cattle while
on the trip," and that "it and connecting
lines overlines over which such freight
might pass should not be responsible for
any loss, damage, or injury which might
happen in loading, forwarding, or unload-
ing, by suffocation, * * * or by any
other cause except gross negligence," and
that "it and such connecting lines should
be deemed merely forwarders, and not
common carriers, and only liable for such
loss * * * as might be gross negli-
gence only, and not otherwise." Held,
that said St. Louis, Kansas City & North-
ern Railway was liable, as a carrier, for
the transportation the entire distance, and
was responsible for any loss or in-
jury occurring from ordinary negligence,
whether such negligence was on its own
or a connecting line. St. Louis, etc., R.
Co. V. Piper, 13 Kan. 505.

25. Miller v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 157
Mo. .^pp. 0.38, 138 S. W. 902; Steckdaub
V. Missouri, etc., R. Co. (Mo. App.), 138
S. W. 904.

26. Missouri statute. — Notwithstanding
Rev. St. 1«^9, § 914, making a carrier re-
ceiving goods for carriage beyond its
route liable for the negligence of a con-
necting carrier, a carrier receiving goods
consigned to a point beyond its route
may limit its liability to its own negli-
Rcncc by issuing a l)ill of lading to its
own terminal point only, and expressly
stating tlierein that it will carry the
goods no further, and will only be liable

for loss or damage occurring on its own
line. Drew Glass Co. v. Ohio, etc., R.
Co., 44 Mo. App. 416; Historical Pub. Co.
V. Adams Exp. Co., 44 Mo. App. 421.
But see Baker v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
34 Mo. App. 98; Heil v. St. Louis, etc., R.
Co., 16 Mo. App. 363; Orr v. Chicago,
etc., R. Co., 21 Mo. App. 333.

Under Rev. St. 1889, § 944, providing
that when a carrier receives property to
be transported from one place to another,
within or without the state, it shall be
liable for any loss, damage, or injury to
such property caused by the negligence
of a connecting carrier, a railway carrier
receiving goods in this state to be shipped
over its own and connecting lines to the
point of destination may stipulate in the
contract of shipment against damages to
the goods occasioned by the negligence
of the connecting carrier. Dimmitt v.
Kansas, etc., R. Co.. 103 Mo. 433, 15 S.
W. 761; Hill V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 46
Mo. App. 517.

A bill of lading l^y a railway company
of goods to 1)6 transported over its own
and connecting lines stipulated that dam-
ages for loss or injury sustained in tran-
sit should I)c recoverable against the par-
ticular railway company having custody
of such goods at the time of such loss or
injury. Held, that defendant was liable
for loss or damage on its own line only.
Nines v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 107 Mo.
475, 18 S. W. 36.

27. Loss from delay in delivery De-
lay at connecting points. — Pittsburg, etc.,
R. Co. 7'. \ iirs, 113 Ky. 526, 68 S. W.
469, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 356; but see Louis-
ville, etc.. R. Co. V. Farmers', etc., Comm.
Firm. 107 Ky. 53, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 708, 52
S. W. 972.

§§ 3712-3713 CARRIERS. 3344

of the initial line, under such contract, to promptly notify the connecting line of
the arrival of the stock at the receiving track.^s

§§ 3713-3720. Carriers Which May Contract— § 3713. Connecting
Carriers Which Are Partners. — \\'here connecting carriers are partners in
the transoortation of freight, the connecting lines forming practically one line
for the through shipment of freight, each line is liable for the negligence of the
other, and the initial carrier can not, by stipulations in contracts for through
shipments, restrict its liability for damages to such only as occur on its own
line,-'' incorporating such a condition in the shipping contract. -"^^

Reliance by Shipper on Partnership. — A carrier receiving a shipment is
not liable for damage occurring on a connecting line, on the ground that it held
itself out as a partner of such line, where the shipper did not rely on such hold-
mg out, but accepting a contract expressly exempting the carrier from liability
for loss occurring beyond its own line.^^ A clause in a contract limiting the
liability of the initial carriers to its own line repudiates an alleged partnership
between it and the connecting lines.^^

Road Not Sued as a Partner. — \Miere a connecting railroad was not sued
as a partner, the terms of a contract limiting its liability to injuries caused on
its own line were valid, even though the agent acting for it in making such con-
tract was also agent of the other connecting roads. ^'^

Partnership tQtra Vires. — If a railway company enters into copartnership
with other carriers, to carry freight, and an action is brought against the con-
tracting carrier for damages to through freight, on connecting line, defendant
is estopped from alleging that partnership is ultra vires.'^-* Allegations of part-
nership must charge a joint ownership and partnership in the operation of the
different lines, in express terms. ^^

Mere Act of Hauling Shipment. — The action of a railroad company in
liauling stock delivered to it by another road which connects with its line, as
recjuired by statute, does not of itself amount to a ratification of the original
contract of shipment and make it a partner of the former road.-^*^

28. Refusal or inability of connecting 33. Road not sued as a partner. — As-
line to receive. — Louisville, etc.. R. Co. v. kew v. Gulf, etc., R. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.)^

Bourne, Ki Ky. L. Rep. 825, 29 S. W. 975. 73 S. W. 846.

29. Connecting carriers which are part- 34. Partnership ultra vires. — Gulf, etc.,.
ners.— Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wilbanks, 7 R. Co. v. Wilbanks, 7 Tex. Civ. App.
Tex. Civ. App. 489, 27 S. W. 302; Inter- 489, 27 S. W. 302.

national, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 3 Tex. 35. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gray, 45 Tex.

Civ. App. 8, 21 S. W. 691; Gulf, etc., R. Civ. App. 208, 99 S. W. 1125; Gulf, etc.,.

Co. V. Edloff, 89 Tex. 454, 34 S. W. 414, R. Co. v. Edloflf, 89 Tex. 454, 34 S. W.

35 S. W. 144, affirming 34 S. W. 410; 414, 35 S. W. 144, affirming 34 S. W. 410,

Texas, etc., R. Co. r. Hawkins (Tex. Civ. and Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Savage (Tex,

App.), 30 S. W. 1113; Galveston, etc., R. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 663, affirmed in 93

Co. V. Houston (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. Tex. 646, no op.

W. 842; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 79 36. By a contract between plaintiff and

Tex. 371, 15 S. W. 280, 11 h. R. A. 486, a certain railroad and its connecting lines

£-3 Am. St. Rep. 345. it was agreed that certain live stock

30. Where there was a joint contract should be carried from a point in Ten-
by connecting carriers to transport nessee to a point in Texas, the liability
freight thereby making each liable for of the contracting carrier to cease when
the other's default, their liability is not the stock was delivered to a connecting
affected by provision in bills of lading line. The live stock was delivered by
limiting the initial carrier's liability to the contracting carrier to defendant com-
delays occurring on its own line. Gulf, pany, which carried the same to its des-
ttc, R. Co. V. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.), tination, and collected all charges
139 S. W. 81. _ thereon. Rev. St. art. 4251, provides that

31. Reliance by shipper on partnership. e-ery railroad company shall for a rea-
— Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Houston sonable compensation draw over its road,
(Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 842. without delay, the passengers, merchan-

32. Gulf, etc, R. Co. v. Baird, 75 Tex. dise, and cars of every other railroad
256, 12 S. W. 530. company which may enter and connect.

3345 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. §§ 3714-3716

§ 3714. Initial Carrier Lessee of Connecting Road. — A contract for the
shipment of live stock, executed by a railroad company as agent for two other
roads whose Hnes it had leased, is a joint obligation of the three companies, and
a stipulation relieving the contracting road from liability for injuries occurring
beyond its road applies only to inquiries on a road not embraced in its system;
and hence one of the leased roads is liable for injuries tO' the property occurring
after leaving its own road, and on the line of the other leased road.'^"

§ 3715. Right of Initial Carrier to Stipulate on Behalf of Succeed-
ing Carrier. — A railroad company, as an initial carrier, as a condition for an
undertaking to deliver freight beyond the terminus of its line, may stipulate on
its own behalf and that of the connecting carrier, that the liability of each shall
tenninate upon the arrival of the goods at the station of delivery, and that after-
v.ards their liability shall be that of warehouseman only.^'^

Shipping Receipt Purporting to Inure to Benefit of Any Connecting
Carrier. — A shipping receipt, limiting the carrier's liability, accepted by the
owner or his agent, in consideration of a reduced freight rate, being not only a
leceipt, but also a special contract as to conditions of transportation is if it pur-
ports to inure to the benefit of any connecting carrier who in fact receives the
goods, valid for that purpose.'^''

§§ 3716-3717. Power of Initial Carrier to Make Contract Limiting
Liability of Succeeding Carrier — § 3716. In General. — An intermediate
carrier can not limit its liability by a special agreement with the carrier from
whom it receives the goods, unless that carrier had authority from the owner
to make the agreement.'*'^ The initial carrier has implied authority to act as the
agent of the shipper in making a special contract limiting the liability of the
connecting carrier, even in a degree not provided for in the original shipping

Delivery of Receipt by Intermediate to Initial Carrier. — The mere de-
livery by an intermediate carrier, to the initial carrier from whom the goods
were received, of a receipt containing a condition that the value of the goods
at the place of shipment shall govern in the event of loss, is not a contract made
with the owner, and does not change the common-law rule as to the measure

with its road. Held, that the facts were land, 59 N. Y. 611, 17 Am. Rep. 394.

insufficient to fix any liability upon de- But see Babcock v. Lake Shore, etc., R.

tendant as member of a partnership or Co., 49 N. Y. 491 in which it is held that

as joint contractor for injuries to the live where a common carrier has transported

stock while in the hands of the contract- freight under a special contract limiting

ing carrier; its action in hauling such its common-law liability, and by which

stock, as required by statute, not of itself it undertook for an agreed compensation

amounting to a ratification of the con- to carry it to the terminus of its route,

tiact. Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Fuller, and then deliver it to another carrier, no

:< Tex. Civ. .App. 340. 22 ?;. W. inOf.. authority results from the relation or

37. Initial carrier lessee of connecting from the contract empowering it to enter
road. — International, etc., R. Co. v. An- into a special contract on behalf of the
dcrson. ?> Te.x. Civ. App. 8, 21 S. W. 091. owner with the next carrier restricting

38. Right of initial carrier to stipulate the liability of the latter.

on behalf of connecting carrier. -Kansas In an action to recover for the loss of

City, etc., I\. Co. 7'. Sharp, 04 Ark. 115, oil burned while licing transported over

40 S. \V._7sl. defendant's railroad, it appeared that the

39. Shipping receipt purporting to in- oil was sliippcd on a connecting road
ure to benefit of any connecting carrier. without any specific agreement as to lia-
— Mcars v. .\cvv York, etc., R. Co., 75 bility for loss, and that the connecting
Conn. 171, 52 \\.\. 010, -,(l T<. K. A. 884, road delivered the oil to defendant, and
96 Am. St. Rc]). 192. took from it a receipt therefor, contain-

40. Power of initial carrier to make ing the clause, "Owners risk, F. & L."
contract limiting liability of succeeding (meaning fire and leakage). Held, that
earner. Lull il) v. Camden, c-lc, Trans]). the connecting railroad was plaintiff's
Co.. 2 Daly 454; S. C, 40 N. Y. 271, 7 agent to deliver such oil to defendant.
Am. Rc(). :i27. Held, further thai (he condition in ilic

41. Initial carrier. — Rawson v. Hoi- receipt given to the connecting railroad

§§ 3717-3721 CARRIERS. 3346

of damages in an action against the intermediate carrier for loss of the goods
on its route. ■^^

§ 3717. Driver of Local Transfer Company. — A driver for a local trans-
fer company delivering goods to an express company for shipment is not the.
agent of the shipper, with whom the express company might make a special
contract limiting its liability.'*^

§ 3718. Intermediate or Terminal Carrier. — Having Notice of Illegal
Stipulation. — Where an unconditional release of a carrier from liability for
loss or damage to goods in transit comes into the hands of a connecting line,
together with the goods shipped, it is notice to the connecting line of the illegality
of the transaction, and on loss its liability must be determined by the principles
of the general law."*'*

Takes Subject to Through Bill of Lading — Issuance of Supplemental
Bill. — A\'here a connecting carrier receives and forwards goods, which were
shipped on a through bill of lading issued by the initial carrier, of which the
connecting carrier is advised when it receives the goods, it takes them subject
to the terms of such bill of lading; and where the original bill contains a pro-
vision for marine insurance on the shipment, the connecting carrier cannot limit
its liabiHty thereunder, as against the shipper, by the issuance of a supple-
mental bill of lading to the carrier from which it receives the goods, whatever
its rights by subrogation may be against such carrier.'*^'

§ 3719. Power of Intermediate Forwarder to Bind Initial Carrier. —

Where a forwarder of freight, who is the agent of both carriers, to whom an
initial carrier delivers goods to be by him delivered to a connecting carrier, gives
a bill of lading limiting the latter's duty to delivering the goods to a third car-
rier, such bill of lading is binding on the first and second carriers, and the sec-
ond carrier is not liable to the first carrier for the third carrier's failure to de-
liver the goods to the consignee.'*'^

§ 3720. Express Company. — An express company which receives a pack-
age to be delivered to another carrier to complete the transportation may limit
its liability by a stipulation in the receipt that its liability shall terminate on its
delivery of the package to the subsequent carrier. ^'^

§§ 3721-3724. Manner of Limiting— § 3721. General Notice.— A

common carrier may, by general notice, brought to the knowledge of the shipper,
limit its responsibility for carrying certain commodities beyond the line of its
general business. ^^

General Notice from Succeeding to Initial or Prior Carrier. — A com-
mon carrier can not, by a general notice, exonerate himself entirely from his
legal duty and liability for property which is delivered to him for transportation,
or fix the amount beyond which he will not be held responsible in case of injury
or loss, although such property is delivered to him by another carrier, to whom
the notice has been made known, and who received the same from the owner

was valid, and exempted the latter from 45, Takes subject to through bill of

liability for the loss. Hinkley v. New lading— Issuance of supplemental bill.—

York, etc., R. Co. (N. Y.), 3 Thomp. & Eerwind-White Coal Min. Co. v. Metro-

C. 281. politan Steamship Co., 183 Fed. 257.

4a Delivery of receipt by mtermedi- ^g p^^^^ ^^ intermediate forwarder to

ate to mitial carrier.-Lamh t' Camden, ^^j^^ j^^^j^l carrier.-Chicago, etc., R. Co.

etc Transp. Co (^- \.). 2 Daly 454. ^, Northern Line Packet Co., 70 111. 217.

43. Driver of local transfer company. '. ,
—Ferris V. Adams Exp. Co., 77 N. J. L. ^7. Express company.— Snider v. Ad-
19 71 Atl 683. ^n'\^ Exp. Co., 63 Mo. 376.

44. Having notice of illegal stipulation. 48. General notice. — Farmers', etc.,
— Woodbnrn v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 23 Vt.
40 Fed. 731. 186, 56 Am. Dec. 68.




under an agreement to carry it over his own line, and then, as agent of the con-
signor, to send it forward by a carrier.^''

§ 3722. Usage or Custom. — Common carriers employed in the transpor-
tation of goods on the Hudson river, between New York and Albany, and giv-
ing an acceptance of the same, without limiting their responsibility to Albany,
are liable for the loss of the goods happening after their delivery at Albany to
other forwarders, although such delivery be comformable to the usage of the
trade, if knowledge of such usage be not brought home to the owner of the
goods. ^^^

§ 3723. Stipulation in Bill of Lading or Receipt. — A common carrier
may limit its liability for loss on connecting lines by a stipulation in the bill of
lading that articles to be transported beyond its lines may be delivered to con-
necting lines for transportation to their destinations, and that its responsibility
shall cease with such delivery."' ^ Under the statutes of Georgia a railroad com-
pany can not limit its liability by a stipulation in the receipt for the goods to
the effect that it shall not be liable for safe transportation of the goods after
they are delivered to other parties for completing transportation or delivery.^^
And under the statute of Illinois prohibiting a carrier from limiting its common-
law liability to safely deliver property, by any stipulation in the receipt given
therefor, a limitation in a bill of lading acknowledging the receipt of property,
which limits the liability of the carrier to loss on its own line, is invalid; but the
common-law liability may be limited by the part of the bill constituting the con-
tract on the shipper assenting to the restrictions.^''^

§ 3724. Express Contract.— In Georgia, '^'^ Illinois,^^'^ Kentucky, -^'^ Ne-
braska^^ and South Carolina, ^^ a contract limiting the liability of the initial car-
rier to its own line must be an express contract agreed to by the shipper.

§§ 3725-3730. Form and Requisites, Contents and Legibility—
§ 3725. Legibility.— Provision in Fine Print Obscured by Stamp.— In a

bill of lading, providing for the carrying of the goods beyond the line of the car-
rier issuing the bill, a provision in fine print, somewhat obscured by the use of

49. General notice from succeeding to
initial or prior carrier. — Judson v. West-
ern R. Corp. (Mass.), G Allen 4H(i, 83 Am.
Dec. (UG.

50. Usage or custom. — St. John v. Van
Santvooi-fl (X. Y.), 3.'5 Wend. OGO.

51. Stipulation in bill of lading or re-
ceipt. — Where the receipt on a bill of
lading,' of Roods marked to New York re-
cited that the Roods were to be trans-
ported, over the line of the defendant's
road, to a certain station, and there de-
livered, in good order, to another com-
pany, whose line was a part of the route
to the place of destination, and that the
liability of defendant, as a common car-
rier, should cease when the goods were
so delivered, at that station, to the other
company, and the shipper accepted such
ieccii)t with knowledge of its contents,
it liecamc tlie contract of both parties.
Field V. Chicago, etc.. R. Co., 71 111. 4.58.
See post, "Knowledge and Assent of
ShippiT," § WTM).

Kentucky.- A\r\\\\V v. Oliio, etc., R. Co.,
32 Ky. I,. Rep. 17.J, 10.-, S. W. 443.

4 Car— 10

Missouri. — Minter Bros. v. Southern

Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 46 of 214)