Graves v. Shore
| Citation | 137 Mass. 33 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1884 |
| Parties | Chester H. Graves & others v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad Company |
Suffolk.
Judgment affirmed.
H. G Parker & J. H. Fiske, for the plaintiffs.
A. L Soule & F. H. Gillett, for the defendant.
The defendant, as a common carrier, received at Peoria, Illinois seventy-five barrels of high wines, and agreed to deliver them to the plaintiffs at Boston, in this Commonwealth. The bill of lading contained the stipulation that the goods were "shipped at an agreed valuation of $ 20 per bbl owner's risk of leakage." It also contained the agreement, that, "in the event of the loss of any property for which responsibility attaches under this bill of lading to the carriers, the value or cost of the same at the time and point of shipment is to govern the settlement, except the value of the articles has been agreed upon with the shipper, or is determined by the classification upon which the rates are based."
The defendant had no knowledge of the value of the goods except that furnished by the statement of the shippers, and the charge for transportation was based upon this statement and valuation. The goods were destroyed during the transit by a collision of two trains, occasioned by the negligence of the servants of the defendant. The only question presented is whether the plaintiffs can recover any more than the agreed valuation of the goods.
The question whether a carrier can, by a special contract, exempt himself from liability for a loss arising from the negligence of himself or his servants, is one which has been much discussed, and upon which the adjudications are conflicting. If we adopt the general rule, that a carrier cannot thus exempt himself from responsibility, we are of opinion that it does not cover the case before us, which must be governed by other considerations. The defendant has not attempted to exempt itself from liability for the negligence of its servants. It has made no contract for that purpose, but admits its responsibility; its claim is, that the plaintiffs, having represented and agreed that the goods are of a specified value, and having thus obtained the benefit of a diminished rate of transportation, are now estopped to claim, in contradiction of their representation and agreement, that the goods are of a greater value.
It is the right of the carrier to require good faith on the part of those persons who deliver goods to be carried, or enter into contracts with him. The care to be exercised in transporting property, and the reasonable compensation for its carriage depend largely on its nature and value, and such persons are bound to use no fraud or deception which would mislead him as to the extent of the duties or the risks which he assumes. It is just and reasonable that a carrier should base his rate of compensation, to some extent, upon the value of the goods carried; this measures his risks, and is an important element in fixing his compensation. If a person voluntarily represents and agrees that the goods delivered to a carrier are of a certain value, and the carrier is thereby induced to grant him a reduced rate of compensation for the carriage, such person ought to be barred by his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Homer v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
...Co. v. McKinney, 34 Ind.App. 402, 73 N.E. 148; Express Co. v. Joyce, 72 N.E. 865; Squire v. N.Y. C. R. R., 98 Mass. 239; Graves v. Lake Shore Ry. Co., 137 Mass. 33; Graves v. Express Co., 176 Mass. 280; John v. American Exp. Co., 77 N.E. 638; Brehme v. Dinsmore, 25 Md. 329; Alair v. Railroa......
-
Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. I. C. C.
...to property transported, even where the loss or damage was caused by the negligence of the carrier. E. g., Graves v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am.Rep. 282 (1884). The federal courts adopted this latter position. Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 331, 5 S.Ct. 151,......
-
Stringfield v. Southern Ry. Co
...will be upheld though the injury complained of arose from the carrier's negligence. Squire v. Railroad, 98 Mass. 239; Graves v. Railroad, 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Rep. 282. And we are aware that such a principle was expressly applied by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hart......
-
Hooker v. Boston & M.R.r.
...Co., 147 Mass. 58, 16 N.E. 717; Hill v. Boston, Hoosac Tunnel & Western R. R., 144 Mass. 284, 10 N.E. 836; Graves v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. R. R., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Rep. 282; Bernard v. Adams Express Co., 205 Mass. 254, 91 902, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 293; McKahan v. American Express Co.,......