Townsend & Wyatt Dry Goods Co. v. United States Exp. Co.

• Citation: 113 S.W. 1161,133 Mo. App. 683
• Parties: TOWNSEND & WYATT DRY GOODS CO. v. UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO.
• Decision Date: 16 November 1908
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

113 S.W. 1161

133 Mo. App. 683

TOWNSEND & WYATT DRY GOODS CO. v. UNITED STATES EXPRESS CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 16, 1908.

Rehearing Denied December 7, 1908.

1. CARRIERS (§ 46)—EXPRESS MATTER—CONTRACTS —LAW GOVERNING.

A contract made in New York by an express company to carry goods to a point in Missouri is governed by the laws of New York.

2. CARRIERS (§ 158)—GOODS—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

A carrier of goods can limit its liability for negligence when the shipper fixes a valuation upon the goods, and agrees that the carrier's liability shall not exceed such value, where a higher rate is charged on goods of greater value.

3. CARRIERS (§ 158)—GOODS—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

Under the law of New York, where the shipper of goods states no value, the carrier is liable for the actual value of goods negligently lost, but one who undervalues to obtain a lower rate risks the difference between the real value of the goods and the lesser value assumed in the carrier's receipt.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; I. A. Mosman, Judge.

Action by the Townsend & Wyatt Dry Goods Company against the United States Express Company. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Spencer & Landis, for appellant. Culver & Phillip, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

This is a suit by plaintiff against the defendant as a common carrier to recover the value of certain goods lost in transportation.

The facts are as follows: The plaintiff purchased goods of Johnson, Cowdin & Co. of the city of New York to be shipped to St. Joseph, Mo. Johnson, Cowdin & Co. delivered the package containing the goods to the defendant company consigned to plaintiff at St. Joseph. Their agent who had charge of its express business made out a receipt for the goods, which was signed by the agent of the defendant company. This receipt was made out on one of the blanks furnished by the defendant company for use of Johnson, Cowdin & Co. in making shipments. The form of the parts of the receipt necessary for the purposes of the case is as follows:

                       "United States Express Company
                "Read the conditions of this receipt
                

"Received of ______ at New York, N. Y. Which we undertake to forward to the nearest point of destination reached by the company, subject expressly to the following conditions, namely ______ nor in any case shall this company be held liable or responsible, nor shall any demand be made upon them beyond the sum of fifty dollars at which sum said property is hereby valued, unless the just and true value thereof is stated herein. * * *

"The liability of this company is limited to fifty dollars unless a greater value is stated in this receipt, and ceases on delivery of property to the nearest point of destination it can carry same. * * *"

It was shown that, if a greater valuation was placed upon goods to be carried, the rate for transportation was correspondingly greater. The defendant gave in evidence the law of New York relating to the contract of shipment as interpreted by the courts of that state. It was also shown that the value of the goods shipped had much to do with the care and attention given for their safe carriage and delivery. The court, among other things, found: "That no fraud was alleged or proven on the part of plaintiff; that there is no question of reduced rate so-called in this case; that plaintiff had the choice to accept the rate based on the valuation of $50, or to state a greater valuation, and pay a higher rate, and elected to accept the rate based on a valuation of $50; and that under the law of the state of New York the receipt did not exempt the company from liability for the negligence which we assume occasioned the loss * * * and nothing precluded plaintiff from recovering upon the negligence proven, but the amount of his recovery was limited by the contract to the sum of $50." The judgment of the court was for $50, from which plaintiff appealed.

The contract is to be construed as interpreted by the courts of the state of New York; that is, the law of the place of contract. In Bates v. Weir (Sup.) 105 N. Y. Supp., loc. cit. 785, it is held: "Where a contract for the shipment of goods by express limits the carrier's liability to $50 unless a greater value is stated by the shipper, in which case a higher rate is charged, the shipper is estopped from asserting that the goods are worth...