Southern Express Co. v. Gibbs

• Decision Date: 21 April 1908
• Parties: SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. GIBBS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

46 So. 465

155 Ala. 303

SOUTHERN EXPRESS CO. v. GIBBS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 21, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. O. Lane, Judge.

Action by Clara D. Gibbs against the Southern Express Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

In view of the decision it is deemed advisable to set out the second plea, which is as follows: "For further answer the defendant says that that alleged shipment was made by plaintiff's agents in two cases under a contract or a bill of lading, partly printed and partly written, under which the Adams Express Company agreed to carry the goods upon the terms and conditions therein set forth, to which the shipper agreed, and as evidence thereof accepted the said bill of lading. And defendant avers that among other terms and conditions set forth and contained in said bill of lading were the following: 'In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is regulated by the value thereof, and is based upon a valuation not exceeding $50 unless a greater value is declared, the shipper agrees that the value of said property is not more than $50 unless a greater value is stated therein, and that the company shall not be liable in any event for more than the value so stated nor for more than $50 if no value is stated therein. The terms and conditions of this contract shall apply to any forwarding or return of said property, and shall inure to the benefit of every carrier to whom the same may be intrusted to complete the transportation.' And defendant avers that when it received said goods from the Adams Express Company under its contract it became entitled to all the benent of the terms and conditions of said bill of lading. And defendant avers that the said shipment was made and said contract executed in the city and state of New York, by the agent of the plaintiff, and, though said agent was asked the value of the goods at the time of the shipment, no value was given, but in said bill of lading was written or stamped 'Value asked and not given.' And defendant avers that neither the Adams Express Company nor this defendant knew or had notice or knowledge of the contents or value of said package, and the rate charged for the transportation of said package was under the terms of said bill of lading based and fixed upon a valuation not exceeding $50, and if the value of said goods had been disclosed the rate would have been higher. And defendant avers that said contract was made and accepted in the city and state of New York as aforesaid, and under the laws of the state of New York the Adams Express Company could lawfully limit the liability of itself and this defendant to the sum of $50 in case of the loss of said goods, as provided in said contract or bill of lading. And defendant avers that at and before the bringing of this suit it tendered to the plaintiff the sum of $50 lawful money which plaintiff refused to accept, and it now brings said sum of $50, with the costs accrued to this date, into court, and pleads said tender in discharge of its liability under said contract."

London & London, for appellant.

John H Miller and A. Leo Oberdorfer, for appellee.

TYSON C.J.

This action is to recover damages for the breach of a contract. The breach alleged and relied on for recovery is the defendant's failure to deliver to plaintiff at Birmingham, in this state, certain goods, which it contracted to deliver as a common carrier for a reward. The value of the goods was alleged to be $800. Special pleas 2 and 3, to which a demurrer was sustained, do not deny the contract to deliver or its breach as alleged, but seek simply to confine the amount of plaintiff's recovery to the sum of $50, which it is alleged in these pleas was the agreed value of the goods when accepted for shipment by the Adams Express Company in the city of New York, and that such a stipulation is valid under the laws of New York. It is not averred in either of them where the contract for the acceptance and delivery of the goods was made with this defendant. For aught appearing the contract with defendant was entered into in some state other than New York, and where the same rule prevails with respect to the invalidity of such a contract as does in this state. Southern Express Co. v. Owens, 146 Ala. 413, 418, 41 So. 752, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 369. That rule is that it is violative of public policy for a carrier, as a paid bailee, to limit the extent of its liability for the negligence of itself or its agents or servants by an agreed valuation upon consideration of reduced charges for carriage of goods, when such agreed valuation is disproportionate to the real value of the goods, although the contents of the package or its real value are not disclosed to the carrier. Southern Express Co. v. Jones, 132 Ala. 437, 31 So. 501; Southern Express Co. v. Owens, supra, and cases there cited. It may be that we could rest our decision of the insufficiency of these pleas upon this point, but we do not care to do so.

The insistence is that, as the stipulation limiting defendant's liability to $50 is valid under the laws of New York, where made, it should be enforced by the courts of this state, notwithstanding it is in violation of the public policy of this state as declared by our decisions. Whether this court is committed by former decision to the proposition asserted is not necessary, under the view we take of this case, to be here determined. The rule seems to be universal that a contract, as to its nature, obligation, and validity is to be governed by the law...