Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 53 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 53 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


shipper and the above-named companies," the company receiving the goods from
the railway company, not being one of "the above-named companies," could not
•♦"ake the benefit of the exemptions in the receipt given.*^"

Steamboat Bill of Lading Signed by Agents of Connecting Railroads.
— A steamboat bill of lading for the shipment of goods to be delivered to a con-
necting railroad, specifying the rate of freight through to destination, and signed
by the agents of the connecting railroad company, is a contract for through ship-
ment; and the railroad company is entitled to the benefit of the exemptions or
limitations of liability for loss or damage to the freight contained in the bill of
la ding. ''^1

Express Receipt.- — A bill of lading given by an express company, upon
receipt of goods addressed to a consignee in another city, and containing the
company's agreement to forward them to its agency most convenient to the
destination, and there deliver them to other parties to complete the transporta-
tion, payment for the entire transportation to be collected from the consignee
upon final delivery, is a through contract, and the final carrier is entitled to an
exemption given by the bill of lading from liability for damages.**-

Naming Destination of Shipment. — The fact that a contract for trans-
portation of freight to be delivered to a subsequent carrier names the ultimate



56. Contract must make intermedi-
ate or terminal carrier agent of initial
carrier. — Central R., etc.. Co. v. Bridger,
94 Ga. 471, 20 S. H. 349.

57. Bill of lading regulating entire
transportation. — Garvan c'. New York,
etc., R. Co.. 210 Mass. 275, 96 N. E. 717.

58. Connecting carrier not specially
named or designated. — Georgia R. Co. z\
SiJtars. (Hi Ga. 4h."), 42 Am. Rep. 81.

59. Where a shipping receipt, entered
into in consideration of a reduced rate
of shipment, stipulates that no carrier
shall be liable for damage l)y water not
due to its own negligence or that of its
servants, a connecting carrier, though not
especially named in the receipt, is enti-
tled to the benefit of such provision.
Mears v. New York, etc., R. Co., 52 Atl.
610, 75 Conn. 171, 50 L. R. A. 884, 90 .\ni.
St. Rep. 192.

W. shipped cotton at Memphis for
biverpool under through contracts with
crrtain dispiitch companies to carry to
Jersey City and with certain steamboat

4 Car— 18



companies. Under the bills of lading, the
ccmipanies "and their connections" were
not to be liable for loss or damage by
fire to the cotton while in transit or de-
posit, or places of transshipment, or at
depots or landings at points of delivery.
Held, that the E. Ry. Co., which was not
a member of the dispatch companies, and
in whose freight house at Jersey City
part of the cotton was, without any neg-
ligence on its part, destroyed by fire, \vas
entitled to the benefit of said restrictive
clauses. Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87
N. Y. 41?.. Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 349, af-
firming 45 X. Y. Super. Ct. 002.

60. Contract between shipper 'above
named (railroad) companies" as exclud-
ing unnamed company. — Merchants' Dcs-
patcii 'i'raiisp. Co. r. P.olles. SO 111. 4715.

61. Steamboat bill of lading signed by
agents of connecting railroad. — Wood-
ward z'. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. 447,
bed. Cas. No. 18,007.

62. Express receipt. — White ?■. Weir,
51! N. Y. S. 405, ;i:} .\pp. Div. 145.



§§ 3782-3783



CARRIERS.



3380



destination of the shipment, does not make it a through contract so as to en-
title the subsequent carrier to benefit of the hmitations of the initial carrier's
liability.*^^

Through Rate of Freight. — To entitle a connecting carrier to the benefit
of a special contract between the shipper and the receiving carrier limiting lia-
bility in case of loss, it must appear that the reduced rate forming the considera-
tion of the special contract was not confined to the line of the receiving carrier,
but extended and applied to the connecting line also, unless the contract was
such as to bind the receiving carrier for full performance, so as to make the
connecting carrier its agent/^^ Where the shipper signed a contract purporting
to be made with the receiving carrier "and its connecting lines," releasing the car-
riers from liability for any damage not caused by their negligence, and providing
that its terms shall inure to the benefit of connecting lines, unless they stipulate
otherwise, a connecting carrier, which receives and transports the same shipment
under this contract, is entitled to the benefit of its exemptions, notwithstanding
no rate for the entire distance is fixed by it.^^ The fact that the carrier is not
interested in the rate contracted for as to. the part of the route beyond its own
terminus, but receives only its regular local rate from the connecting line, is
not suiificient to show that goods shipped under a through bill of lading, for
which the carrier took from the shippers a guarantee of the freight charges for
the entire route, were not in fact shipped under a through bill, but that the car-
rier had limited its liability to its own line.*^*^

§ 3783. Instances of Particular Limitations. — An exception in a con-
tract by a railroad for the carriage of goods to a point beyond its own line of
"unavoidable accidents of the railroad and of fire in the depot," f'" of "any loss
from fire;"*^^ a stipulation that the freight is shipped "at owner's risk;"^''^ a



63. Ultimate destination mentioned in
receipt — Payment of freight for entire
distance at destination.^! n Camden, etc.,
R. Co. V. Forsyth Bros. & Co., Gl Pa. 81,
is appeared that the Pennsylvania R. Co.
gave a receipt for oil to be delivered "at
the company's freight station, Philadel-
phia." Appended to the receipt as, ''Rate
to Red Hook, 65 cents. * * * This oil
is carried only on open cars and entirely
at owner's risk from hre and leakage
while in possession of the railroad com-
pany or carriers, while standing or in
transit." The freight was to be paid at
Red Hook. It was held that mentioning
Red Hook as the ttltimate destination
and payment of the freight there, was at
most no more than an engagement to
forward to that place; that the limita-
tions in the contract as to the liabilities
of the Pennsylvania R. Cu. applied only
to that portion of the route on which
they acted as carriers, not to that with
reference to which they were forwarders;
and that the exemption from liability as
to oil afifected only the Pennsylvania R.
Co.

64. Through rate of freight.- -Central
R., etc., Co. :■. Bridger, 9-t Ga. 471, 20 S.
E. 349.

65. Western R. Co. v. Plarwell, 91 Ala.
340, 8 So. 649; S. C, 97 Ala. 341, 11 So.
781.

66. Central R., etc., Co. v. Hasselkus,
91 Ga. 382, 17 S. E. 838, 44 Am. St.
Rep. 37.



67. An exception in a bill of lading
given by a railroad corporation for goods
to he transported beyond its own line, of
"unavoidable accidents of the railroad and
of lire in the depot," extend to every
other connecting carrier who received a
share of the freight under the bill of lad-
ing, and with whom no other contract
was made. Maghee v. Camden, etc.,
Transp. Co., 45 N. Y. 514, 6 Am. Rep. 124.

68. Fire clause. — Evansville, etc., R,
Co. V. Androscoggin Mills (U. S.), 23
Wall. 594, 22 L. Ed. 724; Manhattan . Oil
Co. V. Camden, etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.),
52 Barb. 72, 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 289;



69. Freight to be transported "at own-
ers risk." — W^here a railroad company
received freight to be transported to a
point beyond its own line of railroad,
over its own and other lines of railroad
connecting with ,it, and gave the shippers
its receipt stating the freight was shipped
"at owner's risk," such receipt is a spe-
cial contract limiting the liability of the
carrier, and connecting railroads are en-
titled to the benefits of the exemption of
I'abiiity specified in it; and neither of
the companies owning such connecting
lines is liable for damages to the freight,
unless it is shown that such damages
arose from the negligence of the railroad
company sought to be charged there-
with. Kifif tf. Atchison, etc., R. Co., .'52
Kan. 263, 4 Pac. 401, 18 Am. & Eng. R.
Cas. 618.



3381



LIMITATION OF LIAIJILITV



§ 3783



stipulation that the liability of the railroad companies as common carriers "shall
terminate on the arrival of the goods at the station of delivery ;" '^*^ a stipulation
that the road in "whose actual custody the goods are at time of the loss shall
cdone be responsible ;" '^ a provision limiting liability to losses upon its own
line;^- and a limiting value clause/ ^ especially where it is provided that it shall



Whitworth v. Erie R. Co., 87 N. Y. 413,
6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 349.

A railroad company, accustomed to
take merchandise for transportation over
its own road and connecting lines be-
tween Boston and Columbus, received
goods at Columbus to be carried to Bos-
ton, and gave a bill of lading therefor,
agreeing to forward the property to its
destination upon certain conditions, one
of which was that the company should
be exempt from liability by any loss
from fire. Held, that the exemption ap-
plied to the whole route between Colum-
bus and Boston, and not to the road of
the contracting company only; and, the
cotton having been burned between Co-
lumbus and Evansville without fault of
the railroad company, the exemption ap-
plied, and absolved the company from li-
abilitj\ Evansville, etc., R. Co. v. An-
droscoggin ^liWs (U. S.), 22 Wall. 594,
22 L. Ed. 724.

Loss by fire while in terminal carrier's
freight house. — In ^lanhattan Oil Co. v.
Camden, etc., Transp. Co. (N. Y.), 52
Barb. 72. 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 289, it ap-
peared that freight was delivered to a
company at C, under a contract between
such company and the owner, to receive
it and carry it to New York; that such
contract contained a provision that the
company receiving the freight should not
be liable for damage or loss by fire or
other casualty, while the property was in
depots or places of transshipment; that
the property, after being carried by said
company to P., was delivered to defend-
ant carrier, to be carried to New York,
and there delivered; and that the freight,
having been carried to New York and
stored in defendant's freight house, was
there, on the evening of its arrival, de-
stroyed by fire, without any negligence
on the part of defendant, and before any
notice of its arrival had been given to
the owner. It was held that defendant
was entitled to tlie benefit of all the re-
strictions of liability contained in the
shipping contract, as much so as the ini-
tial carrier, and, therefore, was not liable
for the destruction of the goods.

A through contract made by a trans-
portation company exempted it from lia-
bility "for loss or damage by fire while
in the depots" of the goods carried. The
goods while in the depot of a connecting
carrier, who had received them, were de-
stroyed by fire, without negligence of the
latter. Held, that the latter was entitled
to the benefit of the exemption from lia-
bility by fire. Manhattan Oil Co. v. Cam-
den, etc., Transp. Co., .",4 N. Y. 107, af-



firming 5 Abb. Prac, N. S., 2S9, 53
Barix 72.

Right of intermediate railroad to bene-
fit of contract made with steamboat
companies — Cotton shipped from Mem-
phis to New York and Liverpool. — Whit-
worth V. Erie R. Co., 87 X. Y. 413. 6 Am.
& Eng. R. Cas. 340.

Fire clause in red ink applicable to
whole route — Where contracting carrier's
road only formed intermediate link in
chain. — Evansville, etc.. R. Co. v. An-
droscoggin :\Iills (U. S.), 22 Wall. 594,
22 L. Ed. 724.

70. Termination of liability on arrival
at station of delivery. — Where goods are
shipped over connecting lines of railroad,
and the contract with the intial carrier
provides that the liability of the railroad
companies as common carriers shall ter-
minate on the arrival of the goods at the
station of delivery, and that afterwards
they shall be liable as warehousemen
onl}', such contract inures to the benefit
of the connecting carrier. Kansas City,
etc., R. Co. V. vSharp, 40 S. W. 781. 64
Ark. 115.

71. Limiting liability to road in whose
custody goods are when lost, etc. — A
stipulation in a contract for the ship-
ment of goods over several connecting
lines, that in case of loss or damage that
road in whose actual custody the goods
are at the time of the loss or damage
shall alone be responsible, inures to the
benefit of an intermediate carrier which
delivers the goods safely to the next suc-
ceeding carrier. Bird z: Railroads, 99
Tenn. (15 Pickle) 719, 42 S. W. 451, 63
Am. St. Rep. 856.

72. Liability limited to carrier's own
line. — International, etc., R. Co. t'. .Ma-
hula, 1 Tex. Civ._ App. 1S2, 20 S. W. 1002.

Refusal to deliver at destination initial
lessee of intermediate carrier. — The M.
P. Ry. Co., holding a lease upon the I. &
Ct. X. Ry. Co., contracted to carry stock
fiom a point in Texas, and safely deliver
the animals at a certain point in Mis-
souri; the shipping contract restricted
the lia])ility to losses upon its own line;
and the stock was carried to its destina-
tion, ])ut not delivered to the shipper. It
was held, in an action against the I. & G.
X. Ry. Co., that such limitation in the con-
tract would inure to the l)cnefit of each
carrier over whose line the horses were
carried, and defendant was not liable
for the refusal to deliver the stock at its
destination. International, etc., R. Co. 7'.
Mahula, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 18,2, 20 S. W.
1002.

73. Limiting value clause.- -Where a



§§ 3783-3785



CARRIERS.



3382



have the benefit of such valuation, extends to every other connecting carrier
which received a share of the freight under the original contract and with which
no other contract was made. But a stipulation in a bill of lading for notice of
claim within a stated number of days is restricted to claims against the initial
carrier, and can not inure to the final carrier's benefit."-*

Stipulation Applicable to Water Carrier Only. — Where a water transpor-
tation company, forming, with several railroads, a continuous line under a joint
arrangement, receives goods to be transported over the whole line, and the bill
of lading excepts damages of navigation, fire, and collisions on lakes, rivers,
and canals, such exceptions do not extend to losses by fire on the railroads.'^ ^

§ 3784. Refusal of Subsequent Carrier to Perform Contract. — The re-
fusal of a connecting carrier to perform part of a contract of through shipment
deprives it of the benefit of stipulations limiting the initial carrier's liability."^

§ 3785. Pleading and Proof. — The last of a series of connecting lines
over which freight is transported, is liable for loss or damage, subject to the



railroad company issues a through bill
of lading, in which its liability is limited
to an agreed valuation, and which con-
tains a clause declaring that this car-
rier's responsibility is to cease upon de-
livery in good order at its terminus in
the direction of the destination to a con-
necting carrier, and an accident results
while the property is in the hands of the
connecting carrier, the limitation of lia-
bility applies in favor of the carrier in
whose control the property is injured.
Fairchild e-. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 148
Pa. 527, 24 Atl. 79.

Where a shipper enters into a special
contract with the initial carrier for trans-
portation, the connecting carrier is en-
titled to the benefit of the limiting value
clause, where it is provided in the con-
tract that it shall have the benefit of
such valuation. Harby v. Southern R.
Co., 55 S. E. 760, 75 S. C. 321.

Aliter in Texas and Wisconsin. — The
principle upon which contracts limiting
a carrier's common-law liability as to
measure of damages are siistained sh;^nld
not be applied in behalf of an interme-
diate carrier in any case where the prop-
erty is wholly unconcealed and is shipped
over several independent lines of railway
upon a through freight rate and consists
of a common merchantable article des-
tined for sale __ on an open market and
only having a well-known and easily as-
certained market value. St. Louis, etc.,
R. Co. V. Moon, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 209,
lO;! S. VV. 1170.

The United States Express Company
received a package at New York to be
delivered at Madison, in this state, and
transferred the same to the defendant, at
Buffalo, N. Y., that being the most west-
ern point to which the United States
Company then carried packages destined
for Wisconsin. The receipt given by
said last-named company declared that
it would not be liable for any loss or
damage of anj^ package for over $150,
unless the just and true value lliereoi



was stated in said receipt. Held, that the
defendant was not a party to this con-
tract, and could not avail itself of the
conditions thereof. Martin ?'. American
Exp. Co., 19 Wis. 33(5.

Express company limiting value of
package. — Under the rule that a shipper
having authority to ship must be regarded
as authorized to bind the owner by a
contract containing special terms of ship-
ment, in an action to recover the value
of a lost trunk and contents the defend-
ant express company is entitled to the
benefit of the receipt given by the ex-
press company first receiving the same,
restricting liability to $50, unless a
greater value be specified. Levy z'. South-
ern Exp. Co., 4 S. C. 234.

74. Notice of claim. — Grayson County
Nat. Bank f. Nashville, etc.. Railway
(Tex. Civ. App.), 79 S. W. 1094.

75. Stipulation applicable to water car-
rier only. — Barter & Co. v. Wheeler, 49
N. H. 9, 0, Am. Rep. 434.

76. Refusal of subsequent carrier to
perform contract. — Plaintiff shipped a lot
of sheep from Arkansas to Texas, over
connecting lines of railroad, defendant's
line being one of said connecting lines.
The contract of shipment, made in Ark-
ansas, contained a limitation in favor of
the carrier, restricting the common-law
liability of carriers. It also stipulated
that the owner of the sheep might be
transported on the same train which
conveyed the sheep, free of charge, and
also that said owner had the privilege of
having the cars containing his sheep
side-tracked. Defendant refused to trans-
port plaintiff free of charge, and refused
to side-track the cars containing the
sheep when requested to do so by plain-
tiff. Held, that defendant could not
claim the advantages stipulated for in the
contract, but was liable as a common
carrier, without regard to the contract.
Texas, etc R. Co. v. Davis, 2 Texas App.
Civ. Cas., § 191.



3383



^IMITATION OF LIAL5II.ITY.



§§ 3785-3786



limitations, stipulated for in the contract of shipment with the first line, unless
it appears that the loss did not occur on the road sued. The burden is upon
said road to show that the loss did not occur on its line.''

§ 3786. Contract Not for Through Shipment. — Where the initial com-
pany transports the freight for an agreed compensation to its terminus, under
a contract limiting its own liability, the freight to be delivered at its terminus
to a connecting line, the duty of the receiving carrier ceases with the delivery
in a safe condition to such connecting line, and there is no privity between
the shipper and the second carrier in respect to the special contract. In such
case, the second carrier is not entitled to the benefit of the exemptions of the
contract, and the liability fixed by law attaches upon the acceptance and receipt
of the freight.'^ ^ As, for instance, where the provisions of the contract apply
only to the carrier with whom it was directly made and leave to it the selection
of the carrier from the terminus of its line to the destination of the shipment ;'^^
where the initial carrier undertook to carry merely to its terminus and deliver
to another carrier at an agreed compensation ; ^" where the bill of lading stipu-
lated that the first carrier should merely transport the goods, and deliver them
to the connecting carrier, and should not be liable for loss as by fire,^^ not guar-
antying a through rate of freight,^^ or expressly excluded any guaranty of a
rate,^^ although it mentions a price for the entire transportation ; ^■^ where the



77. Pleading and proof. — Memphis, etc.,
R. Co. v. Holloway, 68 Tenn. (9 Baxt.)
188.

78. Contract not for through shipment.
— Western R. Co. v. Harwell, 91 Ala.
340, 8 So. 619; Babcock v. Lake Shore,
etc., R. Co., 49 N. Y. 491; S. C, 43 How.
Prac. 317.

79. A contract under which goods are
delivered to a carrier for shipment, which
does not provide that its stipulations shall
inure to the benefit of any other carrier,
nor designate any other carrier, does
not inure to the benefit of an intermedi-
ate carrier. Adams Exp. Co. v. Harris,
120 Ind. 73, 21 N. E. 340, 16 Am. St. Rep.
315, 7 L. R. A. 214.

80. In an action against a connecting
carrier for the loss of goods, it appeared
that the initial carrier transported the
goods under a special contract limiting
its common-law liability, and by which it
undertook to carry merely to its ter-
minus, and deliver to another carrier, at
an agreed compensation. Held, that the
stipulations of such contract did not ex-
tend to, or affect, the carriage beyond
such point, and that the common-law
liability of the connecting carrier attached
on receipt of the goods, though the goods
were marked to a consignee beyond such
terminus. Babcock v. Lake Shore, etc.,
R. Co., 49 N. Y. 491; S. C. 43 How. Prac.
317.

81. Where a bill of lading issued by an
initial carrier for foods consigned to a
point beyond its route stipulated that
such carrier should merely transport the
goods, and deliver them to the connect-
ing carrier, and should not be liable for
loss by fire, it was held that a subsequent
carrier was liable for loss occurring by
fire while the goods were on its pier at



the point of destination. Edsall 7>. Cam-
den, etc., Transp. Co., 50 N. Y. 661.

82. Where goods were shipped under a
bill of lading given by the first of several
connecting lines of carriers, with a stip-
ulation against liability for loss by fire,
but not guarantying- a through rate of
freight. The stipulation did not inure
to the benefit of a carrier beyond the
place to which the rate of freight was
guarantied. Taylor & Co. v. Little Rock,
etc., R. Co., 39 Ark. 148, 18 Am. & Eng.
R. Cas. 590.

83. A special contract expressed in a
bill of lading and in the written assent
of the shipper to its term, which relates
to a consignment of goods from a given
point on one railway to a given point
on another, and which purports on its
face to be a through bill of lading but
expressly limits the undertaking of the
first company to performance on its own
line, with no further duty on its part but
to deliver to the connecting line, and
which names no rate of freight further
than the terminus of the first line, but
expressly excludes any guaranty of a
rate beyond that point, does not bind
the first company, to one with which the
contract was made, to complete, either
!)y itself or by the second company as
its agent, the whole transportation. Cen-
tral R., etc., Co. :: Bridger, 94 Ga. 471.
20 S. K. :;t9.

84. Mere fact that contract mentions
price for entire transportation. -Where
a common carrier cimtracts for the trans-
portation of freight over its route, and
foi the delivery thereof to another car-
rier to be forwarded over connecting
lines to ils ultimate destination, the fact
that the contract fi.xes the price for tlie
transportation does not make the con-



§ 3786 CARRIERS. 3384

bill of lading provided for the delivery to the consignee or a connecting carrier
at the terminus of the initial carrier's road, but the bill was headed "to be used
for shipments to any part of the United States ;" ^^ and where the bill of lad-
ing is issued bv a steaml)oat conijjany which is an intermediate carrier. *^^

Acceptance or Ratification by Subsequent Carrier. — The general rule
that, where the initial carrier transports the freight for an agreed compensation
to its terminus, under a contract limiting its own liability, the freight to be de-
livered at its terminus to a connecting line, there is no privity between the ship-
per and the second carrier in respect to the special contract and that the second
carrier is not entitled to the benefit of the exemptions of the contract, but the
liability fixed by law attaches upon the acceptance and receipt of the freight,



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 53 of 214)