Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 56 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 56 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


V. Raleigh, etc., R. Co., 98 N. C. 73, 3 S.
E. 735. 2 Am. St. Rep. 321; Lindley v.
Richmond, etc., R. Co., 88 N. C. 547;
Morganton Mfg. Co. v. Ohio, etc., R.
Co., 121 N. C. 514, 28 S. E. 474, 61 Am.
St. Rep. 679.

Oregon. — Lacey v. Oregon R., etc., Co.,
63 Ore. 596, 128 Pac. 999.

Tennessee. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Tennessee Brewing Co., 96 Tenn. 677, 36
S. W. 392; Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Hol-
loway, 68 Tenn. (9 Baxt.) 188.

Texas. — Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Cushney, 95
Tex. 309. 67 S. W. 77; Gulf, etc., R. Co.
V. Pitts & Son, 37 Tex. Civ. App. 212, 83
S. W. 727; Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Ney
(Tex. Civ. App.), 58 S. W. 43; Missouri,
etc., R. Co. V. Clayton (Tex. Civ. App.),
84 S. W. 1069; Missouri, etc., R Co. v.
Mazzie & Co., 29 Tex. Civ. App. 295, 68
S. W. 56; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Cohen
(Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. 1123; Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Adams, 78 Tex. 372, 14 S.
W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56; Texas, etc.,
R. Co. V. Capper, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 61, 84
S. W. 694.

Washington. — Sheble v. Oregon R., etc.,
Co.. 98 Pac. 745, 51 Wash. 359.

Wisconsin. — Laughlin v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co.. 28 Wis. 204, 9 Am. Rep. 493.

In an action against the last but one of
a chain of connecting carriers for loss
and damage to goods shipped over its
line, where it is shown that the goods
were delivered to the first carrier in good
order, but were damaged in part, and
some lost when delivered by defendant
to the last carrier, the burden is upon de-
fendant to show that the loss or damage
had occurred when it received the goods,
since such facts are peculiarly within its
own knowledge, and the presumption is
that the goods remain in the condition
in which they were originally shipped;
and, if it fails to show this, plaintiff is
entitled to recover. Savannah, etc., R.
Co. V. Harris, 26 Fla. 148, 7 So. 544, 23
Am. vSt. Rep. 551, 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas.
457.

Delivery of freight to a city expressman
in good condition raises the presumption
of delivery to the initial railroad in such
condition. Willett v. Southern R. Co., 45
S. E. 93, 66 S. C. 477.

In an action against a carrier for dam-
ages to butter, caused by heat, an in-
struction that the jury might infer that
the l)utter was in good condition when
received by defendant from the fact that
it was shipped in good condition in a re-

4 Car— 19



frigerator car to St. Louis (whence it
was delivered to defendant bj^ a connect-
ing carrier) is proper. Beard v. Illinois
Cent. R. Co., 79 Iowa 518, 44 N. W. 800,
18 Am. St. Rep. 381, 7 L. R. A. 280.

Where it is shown that horses were in
a good condition at a certain point in
transit, it will be presumed that they
were still in such condition at a subse-
quent point, where they were delivered
to a connecting carrier. Powers z'. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co., 105 N. VV. 345, 130 Iowa
615.

The presumption being established that
a shipment of melons was delivered to
defendant, as a connecting carrier, in
good order, the burden was on it to
show, either that, when the original com-
pany received the melons, they were in
a damaged condition, or that they had
become so after shipment, without fault
on the part of any of the carriers, though
the melons would, by mere lapse of time,
become worthless, from natural, inherent
causes. Forrester v. Georgia R., etc.,
Co., 92 Ga. 699, 19 S. E. 811.

But in Michigan it has been held that
where an action for an injury to goods
transported by successive carriers is
brought against one of them, it is error
to instruct that, if the goods were deliv-
ered in good order to the first carrier, it
is inferable, in the absence of evidence,
that they continued so until received by
the defendant, as one who sues a carrier
for injury to goods must show aftirma-
tively that the defendant received them
in good order. Marquette, etc., R. Co. v.
Kirkwood, 7 N. W. 209. 45 Mich. 51, 40
Am. Rep. 453.

35. Presumption and burden of proof in
action against last connecting carrier. —
Alabama. — Southern Exp. Co. v. Saks, 160
Ala. 021, 49 So. 392; Central, etc., R. Co.
V. Dothan Mule Co., 159 Ala. 225, 49 So.
243; Walter v. Alabama, etc., R. Co., 142
Ala. 474, 39 So. 87; Southern Exp. Co. z/.
Hess, 53 Ala. 19.

Arkansas. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Pearce, 82 Ark. 353. 101 S. W. 760, 12
Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 125; St. Louis,
etc., R. Co. z: Birdwell, 82 S. W. 835, 73
.'\rk. 502; Gilison v. Little Rock, etc., R.
Co., 93 Ark. 439, 124 S. W. 1033; Midland
Valley R. Co. v. Hale, 111 S. W. 646, 86
Ark. 483.

Delazvarc. — Klair v. Philadelphia, etc., R.
Co. (Del.), 2 Boyce 274. 78 Atl. 10.S5.

Georgia. — Evans v. Atlanta, etc., R. Co.,
56 Ga. 498; Central R. Co. v. Rogers &



§ 3801



CARRIERS.



3396



universally accepted in this country, except in Michigan, where the contrary rule



Sons, 66 Ga. 251 ; Western, etc.. Railroad
V. Exposition Cotton ]\Iills, SI Ga. 522, 7
S. E. 916, 2 L. R. A. 102.

Indiana. — Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v.
Schaefer, 47 Ind. App. 371, 90 X. E. 502.

Maine. — Colbath v. Bangor, etc.. R. Co.,
105 Me. 379, 74 Atl. 918.

Maryland. — Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v.
Diffendal, 109 Md. 494, 72 Atl. 193, 458;
New York, etc., Transp. Line v. Baer &
Co., 84 Atl. 251, 118 Md. 73.

Massachusetts. — Cote v. New York, etc.,
R. Co., 182 Mass. 290, 65 N. E. 400, 94
Am. St. Rep. 656.

Minnesota. — Shriver v. Sioux City, etc.,
R. Co., 24 Minn. 506. 31 Am. Rep. 353;
Beede v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 95 N.
W. 454, 90 Minn. 36, 101 Am. St. Rep.
390.

New Jersey. — Gude v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 77 N. J. L. 391, 71 Atl. 1128.

North Carolina. — -Boss v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 156 N. C. 70, 72 S. E. 93.

Oklahoma. — St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v.
Carlile, 35 Okla. 118, 128 Pac. 690.

Oregon. — Lacey v. Oregon R., etc., Co.,
63 Ore. 596, 128 Pac. 999.

South Carolina. — Cooper v. Seaboard Air
Line Railway, 78 S. C. 81, 58 S. E. 930;
Lowry V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 88
S. C. 310, 70 S. E. 806; Parnell v. Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co., 91 S. C. 270, 74 S. E.
491. Compare Milam v. Southern R. Co.,
58 S. C. 247, 36 S. E. 571.

Tennessee. — Memphis, etc., R. Co. v. Hol-
loway. 68 Tenn. (9 Baxt.) 188; Louisville,
etc., R. Co. V. Tennessee Brewing Co., 96
Tenn. 677, 36 S. W. 392.

Texas. — International, etc., R. Co. v.
Folts, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 541,
affirmed in 93 Tex. 687, no op.; Gulf, etc.,
R. Co. V. Edloff, 89 Tex. 454, 34 S. W.
414, 35 S. W. 144, affirming 34 S. W. 410;
Gulf, etc., R. Co. V. Cushney. 95 Tex. 309,
67 S. W. 77, affirming 64 S. W. 795; Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Adams. 78 Tex. 372, 14 S.
W. 666, 22 Am. St. Rep. 56; Houston,
etc., R. Co. V. Ney (Tex. Civ. App.), 58
S. W. 43; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Mazzie
& Co., 68 S. W. 56, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 295;
Ft. Worth, etc., R. Co. v. Shanley, 81 S.
W. 1014, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 291.

Wisconsin. — Stolze v. Ann Arbor R. Co.
(Wis.), 134 N. W. 376.

In the case of connecting carriers, in
the absence of evidence, it is presumed
that any injury to the shipment was ow-
ing to the negligence of the delivering
carrier. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. t-. Ren-
froe, 82 Ark. 143, 100 S. W. 889, 10 L. R.
A., N. S., 317.

In an action against a railroad com-
pany, for damaging goods delivered to it
by another railroad companj', whose road
connected with it, to be transported to
a place on the line of the defendant's
road, the plaintiff makes out a prima
facie case by showmg a delivery of the



goods in good condition to the railroad
company which first received them, and
a delivery by the latter to the defendant,
without proof of their good condition at
that time. The burden of proof is then
upon the defendant to show that the
goods were not injured while in its pos-
session or that they were damaged when
received. Smith v. New York Cent. R.
Co. (N. Y.), 43 Barb. 225, affirmed in 41
N. Y. 620.

Where the terminal carrier received
and delivered a part of a shipment, the
presumption is that it received the en-
tire shipment, and, to escape liability, it
must rebut the presumption. Smith v.
Southern Railway, 71 S. E. 989, 89 S. C.
415.

Where the initial carrier receives goods
for transportation to another state by a:
connecting carrier, in absence of con-
trary evidence it is presumed that the
goods were lost en route through the
negligence of the last carrier, and the
burden is on it to show that the loss did
not occur on its own line. Kansas, etc.,
R. Co. V. Carl, 91 Ark. 97, 121 S. W. 932.

Where, in an action for injuries to
mules, there was evidence that the in-
jured mules when delivered to defend-
ant, the terminal carrier, were appar-
ently in good condition, it would be pre-
sumed that the injury occurred while the
mules were in defendant's possession.
Winslow Bros. & Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 60 S. E. 709, 79 S. C. 344.

Proof that, when a shipment of shoes
was delivered, three pairs were missing,
was prima facie evidence that the loss
occurred while the shipment was in the
possession of the terminal carrier. Jen-
kins V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 66 S.
E. 415, 84 S. C. 361: S. C, 66 S. E. 416,
84 S. C. 360.

Where several articles of household
furniture, including in a single shipment
and covered by one bill of lading, which
mentioned them in detail, were delivered
in good order to the initial carrier, and
where a part of such goods were not de-
livered by the connecting carrier to the
consignee, proof ot such facts and of the
value of the goods lost makes out a
prima facie case against the connecting
carrier and shifts the burden to it to show
nonliability. W"ay v. Southern R. Co.,
64 S. E. 1066, 132 Ga. 677.

A prima facie showing of loss while in
the hands of the terminal carrier is made
out by testimony of the consignee that
he ordered 30 bags of rice of W., and
that such carrier presented to him, and
he paid, a freight bill for carrying 30
packages of rice consigned by one hav-
mg the same initials as W., and that it
was indorsed, "4 sacks short." Charles
V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 58 S. E.
927, 78 S. C. 36; Mazursky v. Atlantic



3397



ACTIONS.



3801



prevails.^*' In some jurisdictions, however, the rule has been to some extent
changed or modified by statute. ^^ The presumption against the terminal carrier



Coast Line R. Co. (S. C), 58 S. E. 931;
Von Lehe v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,
59 S. E. 1135, 78 S. C. 167.

A case containing goods was delivered
in good order to an initial carrier. When
the connecting carrier delivered it to the
owner, it was found that some of the
goods had been removed and were lost.
Held, that the loss presimiptively oc-
curred on the line of the connecting car-
rier. Bullock 7'. Boston, etc., Dispatch
Co., 187 Mass. 91, 72 N. E. 256.

Where goods in a box were shipped by
three successive carriers, and when de-
livered to the consignee (although there
were no external indications of the fact)
the box was found to have been opened,
and certain goods abstracted therefrom,
held, that the jury might presume, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, that
the box remained unopened until it came
into the possession of the last carrier,
and that the loss occurred through its
fault. Laughlin f. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
28 Wis. 204, 9 Am. Rep. 493.

Where the agent of the connecting
carrier had been apprised of the contents
of a car at the time of its delivery to the
connecting carrier, and he had an oppor-
1 unity before he sealed the car to verify
the waybill by ascertaining the contents
of the car by inspection, the connecting
carrier, neglecting such opportunity,
could not require the shipper suing for a
loss of a part of the goods, to furnish it
with information that it could have ac-
quired by due diligence, and the burden
was on it to prove that the loss occur-
red before it received the goods. Pod-
rat V. Narragansett Pier R. Co. (R. L),
78 Atl. 1041.

Statute not changing presumption

Under the South Carolina statute, Civ.
Code, § 2176, providing that, under a
contract for shipment of freight between
two or more common carriers, the re-
sponsibility of each shall cease on de-
livery to the connecting line in good or-
der, (Ml obtaining a receipt to that ef-
fect from such connecting carrier, and
that the last carrier, on failure on no-
tice to inform shipper where freight de-
livered was damaged, shall be liable
therefor, the rule that the presumption is
that the terminal carrier damaged goods
delivered in bad order is not changed.
^Villett V. Southern R. Co., 45 S. E. 93,
<■><■> S. C. 177.

36. Rule in Michigan. — In Michigan it
lia'^ bei-n held tiiat wiiere property shipped
in good condition through several
connecting carriers is damaged when it
reaches the consignee, there is no pre-
sumption that the damage was the fault
of the last carrier, but the burden of
proof in an action against such last car-
rier is on plaintiff to show that defend-



ant received the property from the other
carriers in good condition. Marquette,
etc., R. Co. V. Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, 7
N. W. 209, 40 Am. Rep. 453; Rolfe v.
Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 144 Mich. 169,
107 N. W. 890, 115 Am. St. Rep. 388.

37. Statutes changing or modifying
rule. — A Georgia statute, Code, § 2084,
provides that where there are several
connecting railroads under different com-
panies, the last company which has re-
ceived the goods in "good order" shall
be responsible to the consignee for any
damage, open or concealed, done to the
goods, and such companies shall settle
among themselves the question of ulti-
mate liability. As to the presumptions
arising under this statute and burden of
proof that it imposes on a terminal car-
rier in actions against it for damages to
goods, see the following cases: Central
R., etc., Co. v. Rogers' Sons, 57 Ga. 336;
Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Forrester, 96 Ga.
428, 23 S. E. 416; Central R., etc., Co. v.
Bayer, 91 Ga. 115, 16 S. E. 953; Forrester
z'. Georgia R., etc., Co., 92 Ga. 699, 19 S.
E. 811; Southern R. Co. v. Waters &
Co., 125 Ga. 520, 54 S. E. 620; Evans v.
Atlanta, etc., R. Co., 56 Ga. 498; Central
R. Co. v. Rogers & Sons, 66 Ga.
251; Georgia R. Co. v. Gann, 68 Ga. 350;
Rome R. Co. v. Sloan, 39 Ga'. 636; Su-
song 7'. Florida Cent., etc., R. Co., 115
Ga. 361, 41 S. E. 566; Western, etc., Rail-
road V. Exposition Cotton Mills, 81 Ga.
522, 7 S. E. 916, 2 L. R. A. 102; Henry v.
Central R., etc., Co., 89 Ga. 815, 15 S. E.
757.

A Mississippi statute, Code 1892, §
4301, provides that if a carrier receive
freight for further transportation and
delivery within that state from another
carrier on any contract, express or im-
plied, for continuous carriage, and it ar-
rive at the place of delivery in a dam-
aged condition, etc., it is the duty of the
last carrier to furnish to the consignee,
on demand, true copies of all records
and memoranda entered on the books of
each carrier touching the receipt, trans-
fers, and handling of the freight while in
transit, and if it shall not furnish the
same within 30 days after demand, it
shall be presumed to have caused such
damage, etc.; but in case of damage, loss,
or destruction of perishable goods by
reason of their nature, and of damage
not discoverable l)y outward inspection,
proof thereof shall l>c admissible. Held,
that the presumption raised is necessa-
rily conclusive, save in the two excepted
cases. Russell 7'. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 40>
So. 1015, 87 Miss. 806.

For the consignee of a car of trcight to
write the last of connecting carriers that
there was a shortage, saying "Kindly
trace shortage," is not such a demand as



S 3801



CARRIERS.



3398



stands as evidence throughout the trial to be weighed by the jury along with any
rebutting evidence of the defendant tending to show that the damage was done
while the goods were in the hands of another carrier.^"^ The presumption that the
damage resulted from the negligence or fault of the terminal carrier does not arise
if there is no proof that the goods were in any other condition when received by
the initial carrier than as found in the hands of the terminal carrier.*^^ Where ^
goods are shipped over several lines and there is a total loss, the goods not ar-
riving at their final destination, the initial carrier is liable, unless it proves delivery
to the next carrier.-**^ In such case, if suit is brought against the last carrier, the
burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the receipt of the goods by the
defendant, unless some relation of agency or partnership or some special con-
tract affects the status.'*^ But evidence that the goods were delivered to and re-
ceived by the defendant for transportation, and that the defendant failed to de-
liver the goods to the plaintiff, makes a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.'^^
The rule that the presumption from the receipt by the consignee from the termi-
nal carrier of a shipment of goods in a damaged condition is that the goods were
damaged while in the possession of such carrier applies to perishable goods as
well as other shipments, and such carrier must show that its negligence did not
contribute to bring about the deterioration of the goods. ^^ The presumption that
goods reached the hands of the last carrier in the same condition as when deliv-
ered to the first carrier in the line, is not modified or changed by the fact that the ■
last carrier transported the goods over its line in the same car in which it re-
ceived them, instead of transferring them.'*-* The presumption that goods were
damaged while in the hands of the last carrier exists whether the damage is open



to make such carrier liable under Code
1892. § 4301 (Code 1906, § 4853), provid-
ing that if a carrier receive freight from
another carrier for further transporta-
tion and delivery, and on arrival at place
of delivery there is a shortage therein,
it is the duty of the last carrier to ob-
tain and furnish the consignee, "on de-
mand," true copies of all notations, ex-
ceptions, records, and memoranda en-
tered on the books of each carrier touch-
ing the receipt, transfer, and handling of
the freight while in transit, and, failing
to furnish the same within 30 days after
demand, it shall be presumed to have
caused such loss. Threefoot v. New Or-
leans, etc., R. Co., 43 So. 303, 89 Miss.
192.

38. Consideration by jury of presump-
tion against terminal carrier and of re-
butting evidence. — -Parnell v. Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co., 91 S. C. 270, 74 S. E.
491.

Instruction placing greater burden on
terminal carrier than law required.—
Where a shipment was over the lines of
several carriers, in an action for dam-
ages to the shipment it was error to in-
struct that the terminal carrier was lia-
ble for all damages, unless it "should
satisfy" the jury that the damage occurred
on one of the other connecting lines,
as the instruction placed a greater bur-
den than the law required. Judgment 86
S. W. 17, reversed in Houston, etc., R.
Co. V. Everett, 99 Tex. 269, 89 S. W. 761,
citing Willis v. Chowning, 90 Tex. 617,
40 S. W. 395, 59 Am. St. Rep. 842, revers-
ing 38 S. W. 1141; Galveston, etc., R. Co.



V. :\Iatula, 79 Tex. 577, 15 S. W. 573.

39. Proof essential to presumption of
liability of terminal carrier. — Alabama,
etc., R. Co. V. Cassell Drug Co. (Miss.),
59 So. 932; Conti v. American Exp. Co.,
110 Me. 145, 85 Atl. 484; Gude v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 77 N. J. L. 391, 71 Atl.
1128. See, also, Evans v. Atlanta, etc., R.
Co., 56 Ga. 498.

40. Burden of proof where there is a
total loss. — International, etc., R. Co. v.
Folts, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 22 S. W. 541,
affirmed in 93 Tex. 687, no op.; Galves-
ton, etc., R. Co. V. Schafermeyer, 31 Tex.
Civ. App. 586, 72 S. W. 1037.

41. Southern Exp. Co. 7'. Saks, 160 Ala.
621, 49 So. 392. vSee, also, International,
etc., R. Co. V. Folts, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 644,
22 S. W. 541, affirmed in 93 Tex. 687.

42. Tradewell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
150 Wis. 259, 136 N. W. 794.

43. Presumption against terminal car-
rier applies to perishable goods. — Trakas
V. Charleston, etc., R. Co., 87 S. C. 206,
69 S. E. 209.

44. Presumption is against last carrier
though it transported goods in car in
which it received them. — Leo ?-. St. Paul,
etc.. R. Co., 30 Minn. 438, 15 N. W. 872.

Where the last of several connecting
carriers receives cars loaded with hogs
so closely crowded that some of them
are found to be suffocated on reaching
destination, the last carrier is liable, in
the absence of proof that the injury oc-
curred on the line of the preceding car-
rier. Paramore v. Western R. Co., 53
Ga. 383.



3399



ACTIONS.



§ 3801



or concealed.'*^ Such presumption arises even though the goods were delivered
to the last carrier in a sealed car.-**^ That goods could not be inspected, when re-
ceived by the final carrier, because shipped in bond, will not prevent the pre-
sumption from attaching that goods, in good condition when received by the ini-
tial carrier, were in good order when they reached the final carrier.^'^

Custom Not Overcoming Presumption That Damage Occurred after
Delivery to Second Carrier. — Where goods in transit over connecting lines
are discharged by the first company at a station in charge of the joint agent of
the first and second companies, the presumption that the damage there occurring
was after delivery to the second carrier can not be overcome by proving a pre-
vailing custom that the goods were not considered as delivered to the second car-
rier till a record showing the delivery was made by the joint agent on the books.*^

Effect of Bill of Lading Issued by Initial Carrier as Agent for Deliver-
ing Carrier. — Under a h\\\ of lading reciting that goods were received in ap-
parent good order, issued by the initial carrier as agent for the delivering carrier,
the burden is on the delivering carrier to show that the goods were not in the con-
dition recited.^'*

Presumption Where Terminal Carrier Receipts for Whole Shipment. —
The delivery by a terminal carrier of a part of a single shipment for the whole of
which it has receipted raises a presumption that the loss of the part not delivered
occurred on its line, so as to require it to show the contrary.""'

Burden upon Connecting Carrier Receipting for Goods as in Good Or-
der. — When it is staled in the receipt given by a connecting carrier that goods
were recei\ed in good order, in an action against such carrier for the loss of the
goods, the onus is put upon the carrier to show they were not in the condition
stated in the receipt. -^^



45. Presumption against last carrier ex-
ists though damage is concealed.— Sa-
vannah, etc., R. Co. :'. Hoffmayer, 7.5 Ga.
410.

In such a case it is not error to refuse
to charge that if such carrier delivered
the property in the same apparent good
order as that in which it was received by
it, it mmU not be liable. Savannah, etc.,
R. Co. V. Hoffmayer, 75 Ga. 410.

Where a box of goods is shipped over
several connecting lines, and the termi-
nal line receives the box in apparently
good condition, and marks the bill of
lading "O. K.," and the goods are found
to be damaged at the end of the line, a
rebuttable presumption is raised that the
damage occurred on that line. Morgan-
ton Mfg. Co. z>. Ohio, etc., R. Co., 28 S.
E. 474, 121 N. C. 514, Gl Am. St. Rep.
679.

46. Colbath v. Cangor, etc., R. Co., 105
Me. 379, 74 Atl. 91S.

In an action against the last of several
connecting carriers, to recover for goods
shipped over the lines of such carriers by
through bill of lading, and lost, the bur-
den is on defendant to show that such
loss did not occur on its line, and the
presumption is not rebutted by showing
that its preceding carrier loaded such
goods into one of its scaled cars, which
had no end windows or other means of
entering except through tlie doors, where
it was not shown that the seal remained
as put on. r'aison v. Alal^ama, etc., R.



Co., 69 Miss. 569. 13 So. 37, 30 Am. St.
Rep. 577.

47. Presumption against final carrier
applies to goods shipped in bond. —
Stolze r. Ann Arbor R. Co. (Wis.), 134
N. W. :!76.

48. Custom not overcoming presump-
tion that damage occurred after delivery
to second carrier. — Kansas City South-
ern R. Co. T'. Embry, 90 S. W. 15, 76
Ark. 5S'.).

49. Effect of bill of lading issued by ini-
tial carrier as agent for delivering carrier.
— St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Jamieson, 20
Okla. 654, 95 Pac. 417.

50. Presumption where terminal car-



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 56 of 214)