Muser v. American Express Co.

Citation1 F. 382
PartiesMUSER and another v. THE AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY.
Decision Date24 January 1880
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

WALLACE J.

The plaintiffs delivered to the American Express Company, at Syracuse, N.Y., a trunk with contents of the value of $4,172 for transportation to New York city, taking a receipt, which among other stipulations, contained those reading as follows 'This company is not to be held liable for any loss or damage by fire, * * * nor in any event shall this company be held liable or responsible, nor shall any demand be made upon them, beyond the sum of $50, at which sum said property is hereby valued unless the just and true value thereof is stated herein.'

The value of the trunk and contents was not stated in the receipt, and no evidence was given to show that the agent of the defendant knew the value of the property. Through the negligence of the employes of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, which corporation was employed by the defendant to transport the property in question, the car in which the express company shipped the property for transportation to New York city was thrown from the track and a fire ensued which destroyed the plaintiff's trunk and contents.

The question now is, whether the defendant is relieved from the responsibility by reason of the stipulation in the receipt, or, if not wholly absolved, whether it is liable for more than $50.

It will not be profitable to review the authorities which consider the right of common carriers to limit or modify their common law liabilities by notices or special contracts. It is the settled law in the federal courts that common carriers cannot relieve themselves from liability for negligence either by notice or by special contract, though they may, by contract with the shipper, stipulate for such a reasonable modification of their common law liability as is not inconsistent with their essential duties to the public. They cannot, therefore, exonerate themselves from liability for the negligence of their own agents, but may from the acts or misconduct of persons over whom they have no authority or control, actual or legal. York Co. v. Central R. 3 Wall. 107; R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357; Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Exp. Co. 93 U.S. 174.

The plaintiff's property was destroyed by the negligence of the railroad company, the agent of the defendant, and the defendant is, therefore, liable, notwithstanding the stipulation against liability for fire.

The precise question presented under the stipulation limiting the defendant's liability to $50, in the absence of a statement of the real value in the receipt, was decided in Berry v. Dinsmore, where at nisi prius I held such a stipulation valid. After a more careful consideration of the question than I was able to give I am confirmed in the conclusion then reached. The case of Hopkins v. Wescott 6 Blatch. 64, which was not then called to my attention, is a controlling authority in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hanson v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 9, 1909
    ... ... Smith, 106 F ... 139; Met. Trust Co. v. Ry. Co., 107 F. 628; ... McFalane v. Express Co., 137 F. 982; Railway ... Co., v. Patrick, 144 F. 632; Michelitschke v. Wells ... Fargo ... 302; Alair v. Northern Pac ... Ry. Co., 54 N.W. 1072, 19 L. R. A. 764; Smith v ... American Express Co., 66 N.W. 479; O'Malley v ... Gt. N. Ry. Co., 90 N.W. 974; 1 Hutchinson on Carriers ... Waalkes, 66 N.W. 479; Coupland v. Housatonic ... Co., 23 A. 870-3; Muser v. American Express ... Co., 1 F. 382; Pacific Express Co., v. Foley, ... 46 Kan. 457, 26 Am ... ...
  • Hill v. Boston, H.T. & W.R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1887
    ... ... estoppel against him. It contains no express language which ... can have this effect. The language of the contract is not ... such as would ... v. Terre Haute & S.R. Co., 74 Mo. 538; Orange Co ... Bank v. Brown, 9 Wend. 115; Muser v. Holland, ... 17 Blatchf. 412, 1 F. 382; Magnin v. Dinsmore, 70 ... N.Y. 410; Newburger v ... ...
  • Calderon v. Atlas Steamship Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 30, 1895
    ...of the carrier to a sum not to exceed the valuation; and the cases of Hart v. Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 331, 5 Sup.Ct. 151, Muser v. Holland, 17 Blatchf. 412, 1 F. 382, Graves v. Railroad Co., 137 Mass. 33, and others which might be cited, where the contract was of that description, are not in......
  • Graves v. Shore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1884
    ... ... & N. 437; S ... C. 3 H. & C. 343. Railroad v ... Fraloff, 100 U.S. 24. Muser v ... Holland, 17 Blatchf. C. C. 412; S. C. 1 F ... 382. Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 2 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT