Coates v. United States Express Co.

• Citation: 45 Mo. 238
• Parties: JOHN T. COATES, Defendant in Error, v. THE UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1870
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

45 Mo. 238

JOHN T. COATES, Defendant in Error,

v.THE UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1870.

Error to Fourth District Court.

Cline, Jamison & Day, with Henry & Williams, for plaintiff in error.

I. In the absence of a special contract, the carrier is only liable for the extent of his own route, and for safe storage and delivery to the next carrier. (1 Redf. on Railw. 282, 283; Van Santvoord v. St. John, 6 Hill, 158; Hood v. N. Y. & N. H. R.R. 22 Conn. 1, 502; 23 Verm. 186; Nutting v. Conn. R.R., 1 Gray, 502; 25 Wend. 66; 24 Conn. 468.)

II. When goods are delivered to a carrier marked for a particular place, he is only bound to transport and deliver them according to the established usage of the business, whether that usage be known to the shipper or not. (6 Hill, 157; 18 Verm. 140; 23 Verm. 209; Hempstead v. N. Y. Central R.R. Co., 28 Barb. 485; 2 Pars. on Cont. 212.)

Porter Brothers, for defendant in error.

I. Although the U. S. Express Company did not, by its own line, reach nearer to Trenton than Macon, yet, having delivered the package to the American Express Company, it made the latter company its agent, and through such agency forwarded the package beyond Macon, and is therefore responsible to the same extent as if the package had been forwarded by their own line. (St. John v. Van Santvoord, 25 Wend. 660.)

II. And such agency existed, although such delivery was made in accordance with custom, and may have been with the knowledge, express or implied, of the defendant in error. Although the company may have had the right, according to custom, to re-ship, their liability still continued after their re-shipment. (Little v. Semple, 8 Mo. 99; Carr v. Steamboat Michigan, 27 Mo. 196.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, as a common carrier, to recover the sum of $300, alleged to have been delivered to it for transmission from the town of Allen, in Randolph county, to the town of Trenton, in Grundy county.

On the trial, it was agreed between the parties that the express company received the package, and that it contained $300; that the company forwarded it to Macon City, which was the nearest point of destination reached by the company, and that it there transferred and delivered the package to the American Express Company, which was a responsible forwarding agent, and the only express company forwarding from Macon City to Trenton, and that it was the usual line for carrying express matters upon that route.

The following is a copy of the receipt given by the company at the time it received the package:

“UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY,

)

ALLEN, December 2, 1865.

)

Received of John T. Coates one package, said to contain money valued at three hundred (300) dollars, and marked Cliff A. Evans, Trenton, Mo., which we undertake to forward to the nearest point of destination reached by this company, only perils of navigation excepted. And it is hereby expressly agreed that said United States Express Company are not to be held liable for any loss or damages, except as forwarders only,” etc.

Upon the foregoing evidence the courts below gave judgment for plaintiff.

There is undoubtedly some conflict in the reports as to whether a carrier, receiving goods to be transported to a point beyond his own line, is liable when they are lost, where he has forwarded them to their destination upon another route. Where carriers on connecting routes form associations and arrangements for the purpose of carrying goods or parcels through the whole line, and share the profits, they are, beyond question, partners, and each is responsible for any loss or injury to goods which may happen, in whatever part of the line it occurs. The English doctrine seems to be in favor of the rule that a carrier who knowingly receives a parcel, directed or consigned to any particular place, undertakes to carry it there himself, unless he makes known a different purpose and undertaking to the owner. As a consequence of this rule, it is held that the owner has no contract with the second carrier, and can not recover of him for damages done on his end of the route. This principle was distinctly announced by Lord Abinger, in the leading case of Muschamp v. The L. & P. Junction Railway Co., 8 M. & W. 421, and has been since followed by later adjudications. A similar doctrine was at one time announced by the Supreme Court in the State of New York, in ...