Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 58 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 58 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


for through shipments ; ^^ whether the evidence was sufficient to show that a bill
of lading was modified by parol agreement ; '^■^ whether bills of lading were suf-
ficient to prove delivery of the quantity of goods noted to an initial carrier, in
the absence of evidence to disprove their accuracy or correctness ; ^^ w'hether
there was sufficient evidence to show that the consignor did not regard the origi-
nal carrier as having assumed a carrier's liability for the entire route ; ^^



■with melons was shipped from a point
on the initial carrier's line to a point be-
yond its terminus, and that this same
car was afterwards in the possession of
the defendant carrier at the point of its
destination and that the latter sent to the
consignee a bill for freight, the fact that
the defendant carrier was one of a line
of connecting roads between the point
of shipment and the point of destination,
is sufficiently established. Forrester r.
Georgia R., etc., Co., 92 Ga. r399, 19 S. E.
811.

Evidence warranting finding that line
to which cattle were transferred was a
connecting carrier. — In an action for in-
juries to cattle shipped on defendant's
line, evidence held sufficient to warrant
a finding that a line to which the cattle
were transferred by defendant was a con-
necting carrier. Chicago, etc., R. Co. 7k
Slaughter, 106 vS. W. _208, 84 Ark. 423.

79. Evidence justifying instruction as to
identity of two railroads. — In Southern
Kansas R. Co. z'. Crump, 32 Tex. Civ.
App. 222, 74 S. W. 335, affirmed in 97
Tex. 647, no op., the evidence was held
to justify court in summarily instructing
the jury as to identity of two railroads
negligently transporting plaintiff's cattle.

80. Evidence sufficient to authorize
finding that carriers were liable as part-
ners. — Evidence in an action for delay
in delivery of freight, to be transported
from G. to J. over the Z. Railroad and
from J. to T. over the I. Railroad, that
the two companies had the same freight
agent at J., the same freight dispatcher
and other employees, and that the entire
route from G. to T. was under the su-
pervision of a common traveling freight
agent, is sufficient to authorize a finding
of a partnership arrangement between
the two companies, making them lial)le
as partners. Illinois Cent. R. Co. :•.
Jones, 39 So. 493, S7 Aliss. IH9.

Bl. Evidence insufficient to show agree-
ment between connecting carriers ren-
dering them practically one. — In an ac-
tion against an initial carrier for inju-
ries to live stock l)y the negligence of a
connecting carrier, evidence held insuf-
firient to 'how any contract, express or
implied, or a partnership or traffic agree-



ment, between the two carriers, which
rendered them practically one, so as to
make the initial carrier liable for injuries
from the negligence of the connecting
carrier. Carter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
146 Iowa 201, 125 N. W. 94.

82. Evidence authorizing finding that
one railroad was simply a division of the
other. — In an action against connecting
railroads for injuries to live stock, evi-
dence that the railroads were under the
same executive control; that the checks
to the men employed by one came from
the headquarters of the other; that the
stationery of the former was furnished
by the latter; that the contract of ship-
ment was made in the name of the latter,
while the name of the former was stamped
at the head thereof; and other evidence
generally tending to show that the two
roads were under the same management
although using a distinct name and hav-
ing a separate charter — was sufficient to
authorize a finding that the railroads
were not separate organizations, but that
one was simply a division of the other.
Southern R. 'Co. v. Thomas, 90 S. W.
1043, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 951.

83. Evidence held to show that an in-
itial carrier of freight was authorized to
make a contract on the part of a connect-
ing line for through shipments. Gulf,
etc., R. Co. t'. Nelson (Tex. Civ. App.),
139 S. W. 81.

84. Evidence showing that bill of lad-
ing was modified by parol agreement. —
Evidence held to show that a bill of lad-
ing for goods to be transported over sev-
eral connecting lines was modified by
parol agreement between the parties as to
the lines over which the shipment was
to be made. Steidl v. Minneapolis, etc.,
R. Co., 102 N. W. 701, 94 ]\Iinn. 233.

85. Bills of lading held sufficient to
prove the delivery of the quantity of
goods noted to an initial carrier, in the
absence of evidence to disprove their ac-
curacy or correctness. New York, etc.,
Transp. Line v. Baer & Co., 118 Md. 73,
84 Atl. 251.

86. Evidence that consignor did not
regard original carrier liable for entire
distance. — Where the consignor of prop-
erty which a railroad company agreed to



§ 380:



CARRIERS.



3406



whether the evidence warranted a finding that a carrier made deHvery by em-
ploying another carrier as its agent;'*' whether the evidence was sufficient to
show that a particular carrier was responsible for a delay in transportation ; ^^
whether the evidence was sufficient to show that goods were delivered to the
initial carrier in good condition ; ^^^ whether there was sufficient evidence to
place the responsibility for loss .of or injury to goods upon the initial car-
rier ;^^ whether the evidence warranted submission to the jury of the question



transport from one point to another, par-
tially over connecting lines, signed and
received from the connecting lines bills
of lading in which they assumed all lia-
bility, there was sufficient evidence that
such consignor did not regard the orig-
inal carrier as having assumed a carrier's
lir.bility for the entire distance. Hart-
ley V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 89 N. W. 88,
115 Iowa 612.

87. Evidence warranting finding that
carrier made delivery by employing an-
other carrier as its agent. — In an action
against a railroad company for loss of
grain in transit over connecting lines,
evidence held to warrant a finding that
defendant, after transporting the ship-
ment to the point of destination, made
delivery to the consignee, using another
railroad company's freight yard as its
j^ard, and employing that company to
haul the shipment as defendant's agent.
Shapiro v. Boston, etc.. Railroad, 99 N.
E. 459, 213 Mass. 70, Ann. Cas. 1913E,
102S.

88. Evidence held to warrant a finding
that defendant's connecting carrier was
responsible for a delay in the transpor-
tation of an emigrant's effects, between
points of shipment and junction points.
McManus v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. (Iowa),
136 X. W. 769.

Evidence showing unreasonable delay
by connecting carrier. — Evidence held to
show unreasonable delay in the trans-
portation of live stock by tlie connect-
ing carrier. McMillan v. Chicago, etc.,
R. Co., 147 111. .596. 124 N. W. 1069.

Evidence justifying finding that delay
was caused solely by last carrier's mis-
take. — Cotton was shipped by plaintiff
to "Byron Shennan," and received by de-
fendant from a connecting line with a
freight bill in which was stated the num-
bers and marks on the bales, but the
consignee's name was given as "Ryan
Sherman." Defendant in its entries
changed the name of the consignee to
"Ryan & Sherman," and so carried it to its
destination. Not finding such a firm, de-
fendant warehoused the cotton. Byron
Sherman called at defendant's office at
the destination about the time of the ar-
rival of the cotton, and several times
thereafter, and exhibiting the bills of
lading containing the number of bales
and marks thereon, and inquired for the
cotton, but could get no information con-
cerning it. In an action to recover for
delay in the delivery, held, that the evi-
dence was sufficient to justify a finding



that the delay was caused solely by de-
fendant's mistake. Sherman v. Hudson
River R. Co., 64 N. Y. 254, affirming S
Daly 521.

No evidence warranting finding that
delay was chargeable to last carrier. —
Where goods shipped over connecting
lines are delayed in arriving at their des-
tination, and there is no evidence of the
terms of the contract of shipment, or
that the company completing the trans-
portation had any connection with the
contract, or evidence, showing when,
where, or by which of the companies the
delay was caused, a finding that the de-
lay was chargeable to the companj' last
receiving the goods was not warranted.
Almand v. Georgia R., etc., Co., 95 Ga.
775, 22 S. E. 674.

89. Evidence showing goods were de-
livered to initial carrier in good condi-
tion. — In an action against a terminal
carrier for injuries to peaches, evidence
held sufficient to show that the fruit was
delivered to the initial carrier in sound
condition. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v.
Diffendal, 72 Atl. 193. 109 Md. 494, re-
hearing denied in 72 Atl. 458.

In an action to recover damages by
freezing of a car load of holly while in
transit, evidence held to sustain a finding
that it was in good condition when de-
livered to the initial carrier. Pressley Co.
V. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (Minn.), 136 N.
W. 11.

90. Evidence justifying inference that in-
itial carrier was solely to blame for dam-
age. — •Defendant railroad company re-
ceived certain batteries in crates for
transportation, and after the arrival of
the batteries delivered the same to a
transfer company for delivery. The bat-
teries were in the railroad company's
possession for about two weeks, and in
the possession of the transfer company
not more than one or two days. On ar-
rival it was found that the batteries were
damaged by the spilling of their contents,
and there was evidence that the same
must have been spilled for more than S
week before the goods were received,
because of the condition and appearance
of the packing. Held, that such facts
were sufficient to justify an inference
that the railroad company was solely to
blame for the damage. Hoye v. Penn-
sylvania R. Co., 100 N. Y. S. 190, 114
App. Div. 821, affirmed in 83 N. E. 586.

Evidence establishing, prima facie, li-
ability of initial carrier for loss of goods.
— In an action against a carrier for the



3407



ACTIONS.



3805



whether the shipper rehed on statements of the carrier's agent j'-*^ whether, in
an action against the terminal carrier, the evidence was sufficient to take the case
to the jury;*^- whether the evidence was sufficient to charge a connecting carrier
with the receipt of goods ; "'^ whether there was sufficient evidence to show that
the terminal carrier did not receive freight ; '-^^ whether there was evidence suffi-
cient to show that goods or live stock were in good condition when delivered to



loss of goods, it appeared that plaintiff
delivered them to defendant, to be trans-
ported to a point beyond the terminus of
the letter's line, and that defendant gave
a receipt therefor, reciting that the goods
were to be forwarded to its terminus for
plaintiff at the specified point of desti-
nation. Held, that it was sufficient to
establish, prima facie, a right of recov-
ery in an action on the case against de-
fendant, for negligence as a common car-
rier, for loe^s of the goods, to show the
delivery of the goods to defendant, and
that they had not arrived at the point of
destination, but were lost. Brintnall v.
Saratoga, etc.. R. Co., 32 Vt. 6fi.5.

Evidence warranting verdict against
initial carter for injury to books. — De-
fendant received a package of plaintiff's
books for shipment, and then delivered
them to a connecting carrier after an
unexplained delay of three days. The
other carrier receipted for the package as
being in good condition, without open-
ing it. When plantiff opened the pack-
age, the books were wet, and mildew in-
dicated that they became so at an early
stage of transportation. Held, that a
verdict for plaintiff was sustained. Hunt
V. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 37 N. Y. 162, 35
How. Prac. 287.

Evidence warranting finding that hogs
were not properly cared for by initial
carrier. — In an action against the initial
carrier for injuries to a shipment of
hogs, evidence held to warrant a finding
that the hogs were not properly cared
for while in the possession of the initial
carrier. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Stevens,
96 S. W. 888, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1079.

Circumstances warranting inference
that initial carrier was responsible for in-
jury to hogs. — In an action by a shipper
against a railroad company for damages
arising out of defendant's alleged failure
to transport and deliver with reasonable
dispatch a car load of hogs, and to water
them externally while in transit, by rea-
son of which neglect a number of them
died, it did not appear whether the dam-
age occurred while the car was being
transported by defendant, or later, while
in charge of the connecting road. Held
that, it appearing that the delay was dur-
mg the most trying time of the day and
while the car was in defendant's charge,
the jury might have drawn from such
circumstance the inference that defend-
ant was responsible for the injury. Wal-
lace V. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 95 N.
W. 750, 133 Mich. 633.



91. Evidence warranting submission to
jury of question whether plaintiff relied
on statements of defendant's agent. — In

an action for damages to live stock
shipped over defendant's railroad, evidence
examined, and held sufficient to warrant
submitting to the jury the question as to
whether plaintiff signed the contract of
shipment in reliance on untruthful state-
ments of the agent that it rendered de-
fendant liable as a through carrier.
Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bennett, 76 S.
W. 408, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 834.

92. Evidence sufficient to take case to

jury in action against terminal carrier ■'

In an action against a terminal carrier
for injury to live stock during transpor-
tation, evidence examined, and held suf-
ficient to take the case to the jury. Hug-
gins V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 60 S.
E. 694, 79 S. C. 341.

93. Evidence sufficient to charge con-
necting carrier with receipt of goods. —
Evidence that 14 boxes of goods were
delivered to a railroad company for ship-
ment; that they were sealed in a car; and
that the car, still sealed, was delivered to
a connecting line, is sufficient to charge
such connecting carrier with the receipt
of the 14 boxes. Nev/port News, etc., R.
Co. V. Mendell, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1100, 34
S. W. 1081.

Evidence, in an action against a car-
rier for nondelivery of freight, that
there was shipped to plaintiff at the same
time, and as parts of the same shipment,
a barrel and a box, that defendant re-
ceived from a connecting carrier the bar-
rel and transported it to destination, that
on Its waybill and expense bill appeared
both the barrel and box with notations
indicating that both were received by It
and carried to destination and checked as
In Its possession there, is sufficient evi-
dence that it received the box, though 30
days after delivery of the barrel to plain-
tiff', at which time defendant could not
find the box. It was found In the posses-
sion of another carrier at Its destination.
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Pfeifer & Bro.,
90 Ark. 524, 119 S. W. 642, 22 L. R. A., N.
S., 1107.

94. Evidence not shov'ing that terminal
carrier did not receive freight. — In an
action against a terminal carrier for loss
of freight, evidence held not to show that
the terminal carrier did not receive the
freight from the initial carrier contract-
ing for a through shipment. Lacey v.
Oregon R., etc., Co., 63 Ore. 596, 128 Pac.
999.



3805



CARRIERS.



3408



an intermediate or last carrier ; ^^ whether there was sufficient evidence to show
that loss of or injury to goods or live stock occurred on the line of an inter-
mediate or last carrier, or that such carrier was responsible therefor ; ''"• and



95. Evidence supporting finding that
horses were in good condition when de-
livered by a prior carrier. — In an action
against a railroad for injury to horses in
transit, evidence held sufficient to sup-
porl a finding that the horses were in
good condition when they were delivered
to defendant by a prior carrier. Powers
V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 N. W. 345,
130 Iowa 615.

Evidence insufficient to show goods
were in good order when received from
initial carrier. — In an action against a
terminal carrier for injuries to goods, ev-
idence held insufficient to show that they
were in good order when received from
the initial carrier. Rolfe v. Lake Shore,
etc., R. Co., 107 N. W. 899, 144 :\Iich. 169,
115 Am. St. Rep. 388.

Sufficiency of evidence to show recep-
tion of freight in good order by last car-
rier. — A hill of lading given by the agent
of a steamboat line acknowledging the
receipt on board of the freight in appar-
ent good order, for transportation by
the boat and connecting railroads, is not
sufficient to show the reception of the
freight in good order by the last carrier,
unless it is shown also that the last car-
rier was one of the connecting roads un-
der contract with the other carriers and
steamer and thus bound by the act of
the steamer's agent. Evans v. Atlanta,
etc.. R. Co., 56 Ga. 498.

96. Evidence held not to show that in-
jury occurred on line of intermediate
carrier. — On the arrival of freight at the
consignee's store, a box was discovered
to have been opened and the contents
damaged. its exterior showed chisel
marks. The freight had been routed, by
way of connecting rail and river lines, to
a river point, and from there by rail to
the place of destination, and the last rail
transportation took only about two
hours. In answer to the agent's sugges-
tion that the injury must have occurred
before the last carrier received the
goods, the consignee stated that he be-
lieved the injury was done before then.
A bill of lading issued by the last carrier
receipted for the goods in apparent good
order. Held not to show that the injury
occurred on the preceding carrier's line.
Great Western R. Co. v. :McDonald. 18
111. ]T2.

Evidence not warranting recovery
against intermediate carrier for injury to
cattle. — Part of the train on which plain-
tiff's cattle were transported was derailed
by the breaking of the axle on a foreign
car, to the rear of the cars in which the
cattle were loaded, and the cattle were
only slightly jarred by the derailment.
After the cattle reached the next trans-
fer point, they were found to be stand-



ing, and there were no indications that
any of them had been hurt by the acci-
dent; but, on reaching their destination,
it was found that several had sustained
injuries. Held that, in the absence of
further proof as to what the injuries
were and as to how and where they
were inflicted, plaintiff was not entitled
to recover therefor against the connect-
ing carrier, on whose line the derailment
occurred. Western Maryland R. Co. v.
Landis, 5.1 Atl. 976, 95 Aid. 749.

Evidence showing goods were not
damaged by delivering carrier. — Evi-
dence, in an action for damage to goods
en route, held to show that they were
not damaged while in the possession of
the delivering carrier. Stolze v. Ann
Arbor R. Co. (Wis.), 134 N. W. 376.

In an action against an intermediate
and the delivering carrier for damages to
household goods in transit, evidence
held to sustain a finding that the goods
were not injured while in the possession
of the delivering carrier. Boss v. Atlan-
tic Coast Line R. Co., 156 N. C. 70. 72 S.
E. 93.

Evidence not showing that mixing of
live stock was done by connecting car-
rier's agents. — Where, in an action
against a connecting carrier of live stock
for mixing and unclassifying the stock,
the evidence merely showed that the mix-
ing" was done in reloading at stockyards
at which the stock was delivered by the
initial carrier, but did not show that the
carrier owned or controlled the yards or
that the persons who reloaded the stock
were its agents, there was a failure to
show that the mixing was done by the
connecting carrier's agents and it was not
liable therefor. Baltimore, etc., R. Co.
v. Clift, 134 S. W. 917, 142 Ky. 573.

Evidence not showing a wanton or
v/illful breach of duty by terminal carrier.
— A terminal carrier transported horses
711 miles after a previous transportation
of over 1,400 miles. The carriage was
made by the terminal carrier within 4
or 5 days, and food and water were pro-
cured at four different places along the
route. There was no evidence of any
unreasonable dela> or wanton neglect of
the horses. A witness testified that the
horses when delivered to the terminal
carrier were in good shape. The horses
when delivered by the terminal carrier
appeared gaunt, weak, and hungry.
Held, not to show a wanton or willful
breach of duty by the terminal carrier.
Mayfield v. Southern R. Co., 84 S. C. 393,
66 S. E. 405.

Evidence justifying finding that loss
occurred on connecting carrier's line. — ■
On the issue whether a connecting carrier
exonerated itself from liability for losa



3409



ACTIONS.



§§ 3805-3806



whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant carrier was-
exempted from HabiHty for loss by fire.'-^"

§§ 3806-3807. Measure of Damages— § 3806. In Action against
Initial Carrier. — For Injuries to Live Stock in Transit. — Where hve stock
are shipped over connecting carriers, the measure of damages in an action against



of goods delivered to it by an initial car-
rier, evidence held to justify a finding
that the loss occurred on the connecting
carrier's line. Bullock v. Boston, etc..
Dispatch Co., 72 N. E. 256, 187 Mass.Ol.
Evidence sufficient to charge carrier,
making insufficient delivery to connect-
ing carrier, with injury to property. —
Proof that a railroad company, an inter-
mediate carrier, in November, left a car
of apples on the track of another rail-
road company, without making such de-
livery, to the latter, of the car, freight
bill, and expense voucher, as a reasona-
ble usage and regulation between the two
corporations required, and for that rea-
son the latter corporation did not as-
sume the actual custody of the car, but
returned it to the track of the former, is
sufficient evidence of negligence to
charge the former corporation with sub-
sequent injury to the property, resulting
from the weather. Revnolds v. Boston,
etc., R. Co., 121 I\Iass. 291.

Evidence held to justify a finding that
shrinkage of live stock was due to the
failure of the connecting carrier to un-
load the stock on the shipper's request at
the point it received the shipment from
the initial carrier. Westphalen 7j. Atlan-
tic, etc., R. Co.. 152 Iowa 232. 132 N.
W. 57.

Evidence held to establish prima facie
case for ail damages against terminal car-
rier. — In the case of Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Ed-
loff, 89 Tex. 454, 34 S. W. 414, 35 S. W.
144, affirming 34 S. W. 410, a shipment of
furniture was made from Chicago, 111., to
Dallas, Tex. The evidence showed that
the furniture was in good condition and
carefully packed when it left Chicago,
and in a damaged condition when it
reached Dallas. It was hauled from Chi-
cago to Purcell, Ind. T., by the Santa Fe
Railway Company, and from Purcell to
Dallas by the Gulf, Colorado & Santa
Fe Railroad Company. The latter com-
pany was the final carrier, and showed
by its conductor that at the time he re-
ceived the car at Purcell the door of the
car was open, and the furniture consid-
erably damaged, but did not show the
extent of the damage. Upon this evi-
dence the supreme court held that a
prima facie case for the full amount of
the damage had been made against the
Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railroad
Company, and that it had failed to re-
lieve itself of any part of the liai)ility;
that simply showing that the goods were
damaged to some extent, without at-
tempting to show how much, when de-



livered to it, did not defeat, or in any-
wise meet, plaintiff's prima facie case.

Evidence held to show apples were in-
jured through negligence of last carrier.
— Evidence in an action against the last
of a line of connecting carriers for inju-
ries to apples shipped held to show that
they were injured by frost, while in the
custody of defendant carrier, by its neg-
ligence. Beede v. Wisconsin Cent. R.
Co., 95 N. W. 454, 90 Minn. 36, 101 Am.
St. Rep. 390.

Nonsuit on ground that there was no
evidence connecting last carrier with
shipment properly refused. — In an action
against the last of several connecting



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 58 of 214)