Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Doyle

• Decision Date: 15 January 1906
• Docket Number: 59.
• Citation: 142 F. 669
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
• Parties: BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. v. DOYLE.

142 F. 669

BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. v. DOYLE.

No. 59.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 15, 1906

John S Wendt, for plaintiff in error.

E. W Smith, for defendant in error.

Before DALLAS and GRAY, Circuit Judges, and BRADFORD, District Judge.

BRADFORD District Judge.

The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company be this writ of error seeks to secure the reversal of a judgment recovered against it in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania, by William Doyle for damages for the alleged destruction, through the negligence of the railroad company, of household goods, including supplies shipped by his wife, on his account and as his agent, from the city of New York to Glenwood, Pennsylvania. Judgment on verdict was entered December 30, 1903, in the sum of $2,047.68, after a question reserved by the court had been decided adversely to the railroad company. It appears from the record and is not disputed that the shipment was made October 30, 1902, in 104 packages of the aggregate weight of 4,650 pounds; that the freight to Glenwood, amounting to $20.93, was prepaid and that the bill of lading when delivered by the railroad company to Mrs. Doyle contained the words 'Released to a valuation of $5 per 100 lbs. ' stamped upon its face in red ink beneath and next to the words and figures 'Household Goods 4,650.' At a valuation of $5 per 100 pounds the total value of the shipment would have been $232.50. The sum of $2,047.68 represented the actual loss or damage to the shipment as found by the jury. The third paragraph of the 'uniform bill of lading conditions' printed on the back of the bill of lading contains, among others, the following regulation:

'The amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier becomes liable shall be computed at the value of the property at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, unless a lower value has been agreed upon or is determined by the classification upon which the rate is based, in either of which events such lower value shall be the maximum price to govern such computation.'

It appears from the evidence and is not disputed that the value of the goods shipped, as determined by the official classification of the railroad company upon which the rate or charge for carriage was based, was $5 per 100 pounds; that such rate or charge was 45 cents per 100 pounds, amounting to $20.93 for the total shipment of 4,650 pounds; and that this sum was paid by Mrs. Doyle as freight to the proper agent of the railroad company immediately before receiving from him the stamped bill of lading. If Mrs. Doyle in shipping the goods agreed either expressly or impliedly with the railroad company that they should be carried upon the basis of a limitation of liability, in case of loss or damage, to $5 per 100 pounds, the plaintiff was bound by such agreement, and could not legitimately recover, aside from interest and costs, more than $232.50. If, however, she did not expressly or impliedly so agree, or agree to any other limitation with respect to value, the plaintiff was not limited in his recovery to that sum, or any other sum based upon weight of shipment, but was entitled to recover the full amount of actual loss or damage. There is uncontradicted evidence to the effect that Mrs. Doyle had no actual knowledge or notice at the time of shipping the goods, or before the next following day, of the regulation on the back of the bill of lading limiting valuation in case of loss or damage, or of the memorandum stamped in red ink on its face-- 'Released to a valuation of $5 per 100 lbs.'; that she did not at any time in fact agree to such or any restricted or limited valuation of the goods; that she had no intention or idea that they should or were to be accepted for carriage or carried by the railroad company on such a basis; that neither the bill of lading nor the shipping order, as handed in to the agent of the railroad company, contained such a memorandum; and that when the former was delivered to Mrs. Doyle, stamped as described, together with her change after payment of the freight, she noticed that it was 'stamped paid,' and put it in her purse, without examining it, and did not look at it again on that day.

The second, third and fourth assignments of error are to the refusal of the court below to charge the jury as follows:

'First. That the bill of lading in evidence in this case, 'Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1,' constitutes a contract between the plaintiff and defendant for the transportation and delivery of the goods mentioned therein, to the consignee, upon the terms specified in said bill of lading, and in so far as it contains terms and conditions, fixing and determining the liability of the defendant in case of loss or damage to the goods shipped or mentioned therein, it stands on the footing of all other contracts in writing and cannot be contradicted or varied by parol evidence. Second. That it appearing in this case by the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff's wife, that at the time the goods were shipped, she, as agent for the plaintiff, delivered the goods mentioned in the bill of lading to the defendant and accepted, without objection, the said bill of lading, 'Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1,' from the defendant company's agent at the time of the delivery of the goods for shipment; that such acceptance of said bill of lading is sufficient to show the assent of the plaintiff to the terms set out in the bill of lading (as) to the liability of the defendant company in this case, and therefore the liability of the defendant company in this case is defined by, and depends solely upon, the terms of the bill of lading. Third. That under all the evidence in this case the defendant company is not liable for more than $5.00 for each hundred pounds in weight of the goods mentioned and described in the bill of lading, namely, $232.50.'

If Mrs Doyle, in the shipment of the goods, was not chargeable in law with knowledge or notice of the regulation on the back of the bill of lading limiting valuation in case of loss or damage, the requested instructions above quoted clearly were improper, as being based upon the assumption, as facts, of matters properly determinable only by the jury. The first tacitly assumes that the bill of lading, as stamped in red ink and delivered to Mrs. Doyle at the time of shipment, was assented to by her as constituting the contract of carriage, with knowledge on her part of its terms and conditions relating to liability in case of loss or damage. The second in like manner...