Davis v. New York, O. & W. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 November 1897
• Citation: 70 Minn. 37,72 N.W. 823
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: DAVIS v NEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO.

70 Minn. 37

72 N.W. 823

DAVISvNEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 9, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The rule laid down in Stokoe v. Railway Co., 42 N. W. 482, 40 Minn. 545,-that an attorney is not obliged to produce a writing intrusted to him by his client, or to disclose its contents, without the client's consent,-applied in this case. Held, that the trial court erred when it compelled defendant's attorney to produce certain writings that they might be introduced in evidence.

2. This rule does not extend to writings obtained by attorneys from other sources than their clients, or from third parties, whether strangers or opponents.

3. Defendant's attorney received certain telegrams and letters in relation to the matters in controversy from one B., who had been defendant's attorney in the case, but for whom the attorney first mentioned had been substituted. A part of these communications were addressed to defendant's general freight agent, and a part to the officials of another common carrier. Held, that the presumption is that those addressed to the defendant's agent were intrusted to B. by his client, the defendant, and that those addressed to the officials of the other carrier were obtained by B. from them, and were not intrusted to him by his client.

4. The bill of lading involved in this action, there being a number of connecting carriers, contained a stipulation that no carrier should be liable for loss or damage to the described property not occurring on its own road or its portion of the through route. Held, that if the injury or damage to the property in question (boxes of lemons) resulted, as plaintiff claimed, from the unskillful, improper, and negligent manner in which defendant, the initial carrier, piled the boxes in the cars in which they were transported to their destination, it would be liable for the total injury or damage.

5. The bill of lading also contained a condition that the amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier became liable should be computed at the value of the property at the place and time of shipment,-a condition identical with that construed in Shea v. Railway Co., 65 N. W. 458, 63 Minn. 228, and there held to be unjust, unreasonable, and contrary to public policy, because freight charges paid or incurred by a consignee had been ignored. Held, modifying Shea v. Railway Co., that in this condition there is nothing which excludes, from a computation of damages, charges for transportation paid or incurred by or on behalf of a consignee; and that such charges-paid or unpaid-may be taken into consideration when fixing the damages; and that, so interpreted, the condition is not on its face unjust, unreasonable, or opposed to public policy.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; C. B. Elliott, Judge.

Action by E. O. Davis, assignee of Arnott & Corbett, insolvents, against the New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial defendant appeals. Reversed.

Geo. B. Young, for appellant.

Stiles & Stiles, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This was an action brought to recover for an alleged injury to a quantity of lemons, delivered to defendant company at Weehawken, N. J., to be transported to Minneapolis, Minn., by it and its connecting carriers. A verdict was rendered against defendant, and its appeal is from an order denying a motion for a new trial. A new trial must be had because of erroneous rulings by the court below when receiving testimony. It appears that at the time these lemons were delivered to defendant company, as initial carrier, one J. C. Anderson was its general freight agent, with his office in New York. At the same time one W. L. Martin was the general freight agent, and one A. H. Bode was the freight claims agent, of the “Soo Railway Line,” the terminating carrier, both having offices in Minneapolis. As soon as the lemons (two car loads) reached their destination, and their damaged condition was discovered, Martin wired Anderson, notifying him of the fact, and asking advice. Anderson replied to this telegram. Then Bode, as freight claims agent, wrote Anderson a letter, in which he severely denounced the defendant company in respect to the manner in which the lemons were loaded upon the cars, and asserted that, unless other methods were adopted, large claims for damages would have to be paid. To this letter, Anderson, as defendant's general freight agent, replied, referring to two cars of lemons, with Weehawken waybills numbered 515 and 516. Bode, as freight claims agent, again wrote to Anderson in respect to the damages; and, in reply, the latter, on defendant's behalf, insisted that the lemons were properly loaded, and that no injury had resulted for which his company would be liable. It was shown by oral evidence at the trial that Martin and Bode were in fact acting for plaintiff's assignors when corresponding with...