80 S.W. 24 (Mo.App. 1904), Nenno v. Chicago, Rock Island And Pacific Ry. Co.
| Judge | REYBURN, J. Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur. |
| Parties | NENNO, Respondent, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Docket Number | . |
| Citation | 105 Mo.App. 540,80 S.W. 24 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Date | 29 March 1904 |
Page 24
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. Daniel G. Taylor, Judge.
REVERSED.
STATEMENT.
This proceeding was commenced before a justice of the peace of the city of St. Louis, by lodging the following complaint:
"M. B. Nenno, plaintiff, v. St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company, a corporation, and Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company, a corporation, defendants.
"Plaintiff for his cause of action against the defendants alleges that on or about the eighth day of November, 1901, he delivered to the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company, certain household goods to be shipped from Joliet, Illinois, to Crocker, Missouri; that at the time of the arrival of said household goods a number of articles had been taken from the car, a list of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof.
"That plaintiff paid the regular charges demanded by said defendants for the safe transportation of said goods.
"Wherefore," etc.
Preceding trial, the justice dismissed the action as to the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company, and upon the following application:
"Comes now the plaintiff in the above entitled cause and moves the court to make the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation, and the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, a corporation, parties defendant in the above cause, and to issue summons against said parties for the reason that they should be brought into court as defendants in said cause for the proper determination of the plaintiff's rights," issued writs for the corporations thus made defendants which were served, and September 13, 1902, the cause was tried by the justice, and judgment rendered against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, the St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company and the Terminal Railroad Association, which defendants jointly appealed to the circuit court. When the case was called for trial anew, appellant objected to introduction of any evidence, assigning that the statement filed before the justice did not state any fact upon which a judgment could be based against it; whereupon plaintiff was permitted to amend by striking out the words "Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company" and interlineation of the words "Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company" and "through the carelessness and negligence of defendants, " so that the amended statement thus appeared:
"M. B. Nenno, Plaintiff, v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, a corporation, and Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company, a corporation, defendants.
"Plaintiff for his cause of action against the defendants alleges that on or about the eighth day of November, 1902, he delivered to the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company certain household goods to be shipped from Joliet, Illinois, to Crocker, Missouri; that at the time of the arrival of said household goods a number of articles had been taken from the car through the carelessness and negligence of defendants, a list of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof. That plaintiff paid the regular charges demanded by said defendants for the safe transportation of said goods.
"Wherefore," etc.
The case progressed before the court as a jury, and plaintiff established delivery of household goods to the Rock Island corporation at Joliet, Illinois, November 8, 1901, for shipment to Crocker, Missouri, evidenced by bill of lading embracing among other terms the following:
"Received from M. B. Nenno in apparent good order, by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, the following described packages marked and numbered as per margin, subject to the conditions and regulations of the published tariff of said company, to be transported over the line of this railroad to (Peoria) and delivered, after the payment of freight, in like good order to the next carrier (if the same are to be forwarded beyond the line of this company's road) to be carried to the place of destination; it being expressly agreed that the responsibility of this company shall cease at this company's depot at which the same are to be delivered to such carrier."
At terminus of the Rock Island line, the city of Peoria, Illinois, the shipment was delivered to the Chicago, Peoria & St. Louis Railroad Company, and by it transferred at East St. Louis to the Terminal Railroad Association, which in turn made delivery to the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to complete transportation to its destination. The testimony failed to show any injury or damage while in possession of appellant, but established the safe delivery of the property at Peoria to the connecting carrier.
From judgment in favor of its codefendants and against it, the Rock Island Company has appealed.
The trial court, refusing declarations of law asked by appellant, that no recovery could be had against it, that the original statement filed failed to state facts sufficient to entitle plaintiff to recover against it, and the amended statement constituted a departure, gave the following:
"The court declares the law to be that under the bill of lading or contract sued upon in this action, the defendant Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, was charged with the duty of transporting the goods of plaintiff mentioned in the bill of lading, from Joliet, Illinois, to Crocker, Missouri, and if the court, sitting as a jury find from the evidence that the defendant Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, did not so transport said goods, but transported them or caused or suffered the same to be transported over various connecting lines, and further finds that at the time said goods reached Crocker, Missouri, that a part thereof had been lost, stolen, or not delivered to plaintiff in the same condition in which they were received, then the court sitting as a jury will find a verdict for plaintiff and against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company in such sum as from the evidence the court may find that he has sustained by reason of the premises."
Judgment reversed.
(1) Under the contract in the case at bar, the liability of the appellant ceased at the end of its own line. By said contract the appellant undertook to forward or transport the property only to the end of its own line, and deliver it to a connecting carrier, and that it should not be liable for damages occurring beyond that point. Patterson v. Railroad, 56 Mo.App. 657; Minter Bros. v. Railroad, 56 Mo.App. 282; Orr v. Railroad, 21 Mo.App. 333; Snider v. Adams Express Co., 63 Mo. 376; Coates v. U. S. Express Co., 45 Mo. 238; Dimmit v. Railroad, 103 Mo. 433. (2) Section 5222, R. S. 1899, has no application to this case or to the questions raised by this appeal. That statute refers and applies exclusively to shipments that originate in this State, and not to shipments in other States. It can not have any extraterritorial force. Stanley v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 435; Connell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 108 Mo. 459; Said v. Stromberg, 55 Mo.App. 438; First National Bank v. Hughes, 10 Mo.App. 7; State v. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512. (3) It is well settled that a local agent of a railroad company has no authority to make a contract to transport freight beyond the end of the line of his company. Sew. Mach. Co. v. Railroad, 70 Mo. 672; Turner v. Railroad, 20 Mo.App. 632. (4) The contract should be construed so as to give force and validity to all of its provisions, and so as to make them consistent with each other. Pensacola Gas Co. v. Lotzes, 2 So. 609; 2 Parsons on Contracts, 639; Fire Ins. Co. v. Roast, 45 N.E. 1097; Railroad v. Railroad, 44 O. St. 287. (5) As there was no petition, statement or cause of action filed in the justice's court against the appellant it was erroneous for the circuit court to allow an amended petition to be filed, or the original petition changed or redrafted against the Rock Island Company. Brashears v. Strock, 46 Mo. 221; Mortimer v. Yocum, 44 Mo.App. 277; Paddicord v....
To continue reading
Request your trial