Adams Express Co v. Darden, 226

Decision Date26 May 1924
Docket NumberNo. 226,226
Citation44 S.Ct. 502,68 L.Ed. 1010,265 U.S. 265
PartiesADAMS EXPRESS CO. v. DARDEN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Wm. L. Granbery, of Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. K. T. McConnico and John A. Pitts, both of Nashville, Tenn, and J. S. Laurent, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The first Cummins Amendment (Act March 4, 1915, c. 176, 38 Stat. 1196, 1197 [Comp. St. § 8604a]) provides that a common carrier receiving property for transportation in interstate commerce 'shall issue a receipt or a bill of lading therefor,' shall be liable 'for the full actual loss, damage, or injury to such property [shipped] caused by it,' that 'no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier * * * from the liability hereby imposed,' and that such liability for the full actual loss shall exist 'notwithstanding any limitation of liability or limitation of the amount of recovery or representation or agreement as to value in any such receipt or bill of lading, or in any contract, rule, regulation, or in any tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission; and any such limitation, without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is hereby declared to be unlawful and void.' The effect of this act is to nullify provisions limiting liability contained in public tariffs and in bills of lading. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U. S. 97, 40 Sup. Ct. 504, 64 L. Ed. 801.

While this act of Congress was in force, Darden shipped six horses by Adams Express from Latonia, Ky., to Windsor, Ontario. Five of the horses were killed in transit. He brought this action to recover their value against that company in the federal court for the Middle district of Tennessee. The jury found that the accident was due to the carrier's negligence, and rendered a verdict for Darden in the sum of $32,500. Judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 286 Fed. 61. The case was brought here by writ of error under section 241 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1218). A petition for a writ of certiorari was also filed, and consideration of it was postponed. The case is properly here on writ of error. Compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U. S. 201, 38 Sup. Ct. 429, 62 L. Ed. 1071. The petition for a writ of certiorari is therefore denied.

The company contends that a verdict for it should have been directed, or that the recovery should have been limited to $500, by reason of the following facts: The tariff contained a provision requiring that the actual value of a shipment be declared; and also provided for an additional charged by way of a graduated percentage, if the value exceeded a stated amount. The tariff rate for shipping a carload of horses valued at $100 each was $165. This rate was named to Darden by the Express Company's agent, that amount was paid, and the company's so-called nonnegotiable live stock contract, prepared by it, recited that the value of the horses were declared by the shipper to be $100 each. The horses were in fact race horses, and were of much greater value than the sum named. This fact was known to the company's agent. The copy of the shipping contract stating $100 to be the declared value of each horse was not seen by Darden until after the accident had occurred. It was not contended that he was guilty of actual fraud in shipping at the rate named.

The main argument for the company appears to be this: The statute requires the shipper to disclose the 'real value' of the shipment, and requires the carrier to collect the 'real value' rate. Darden paid the rate which, by the tariff, was made applicable only to horses valued at not more than $100 each. The shipping contract recited that the declared value of each horse was $100. To that contract was attached a notice that the shipper 'must state the actual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Household Goods Carriers' Bureau v. I. C. C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 27 juli 1978
    ...Pacific Railroad Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137, 84 S.Ct. 1142, 12 L.Ed.2d 194 (1964); Adams Express Co. v. Darden, 265 U.S. 265, 268, 44 S.Ct. 502, 68 L.Ed. 1010 (1924). Thus, because of this substantial difference which is recognized by the common law and the regulation, the Com......
  • Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co v. Osborne
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 juni 1930
    ...Case (1917) 47 I. C. C. 335; Domestic Bill of Lading and Live Stock Contract, 64 I. C. O. 357; Adams Express Co. v. Darden (1924) 265 U. S. 265, 44 S. Ct. 502, 68 L. Ed. 1010; Chicago M. & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co. (1920) 253 U. S. 97, 40 S. Ct. 504, 64 L. Ed. 801; N. Y., P. ......
  • C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Osborne
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 juni 1930
    ...Classification Case (1917), 47 I.C.C. 335; Domestic Bill of Lading and Live Stock Contract, 64 I.C.C. 357; Adams Express Co. Darden (1924), 265 U.S. 265, 44 Sup.Ct. 502, 68 L.Ed. 1010; Chicago, m. & st. paul Ry. Co. McCaull-Dinsmore Co. (1920), 253 U.S. 97, 40 Sup.Ct. 504, 64 L.Ed. 801; N.Y......
  • Neece v. Richmond Greyhound Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 18 september 1957
    ...114, 65 L.Ed. 301. The Cummins Amendment adopted in 1915 prohibited carriers from limiting their liability. Adams Express Co. v. Darden, 265 U.S. 265, 44 S.Ct. 502, 68 L.Ed. 1010. Neither of these statutory provisions seemed to Congress to accord equitable treatment to both carrier and In 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT