Amory Manuf'G Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 March 1896 |
| Citation | 37 S.W. 856 |
| Parties | AMORY MANUF'G CO. v. GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Amory Manufacturing Company against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Company for an alleged loss of cotton under a bill of lading. From the affirmance of a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Coke & Coke, for plaintiff in error. Alexander, Clark & Hall, for defendant in error.
This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error to recover the value of 50 bales of cotton. The cotton was bought by J. H. Brown & Co., and was placed upon the platform of a compress company at Honey Grove, Tex., for the purpose of being compressed. While it was still in possession of the compress company, and upon its platform, the defendant in error executed to Brown & Co. a bill of lading therefor, in which, upon certain conditions, it bound itself to transport the cotton to Manchester, N. H. After the execution of the bill of lading, and while the cotton still remained upon the platform, it was destroyed by fire. It was admitted upon the trial that at the time of the loss the cotton was the property of the plaintiff. The trial court found that the fire was not the result of the negligence of the defendant company, and held that by reason of certain stipulations in the bill of lading, which restricted its liability as at common law, the defendant was not liable. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed by the court of civil appeals. The errors assigned in this court are: First, that it was error to hold that under the bill of lading the defendant was exempted from liability for the loss of the cotton while at the compress; and, second, that the evidence was not sufficient to show that the cotton was not destroyed through the negligence of the defendant.
In our view of the case, the determination of the first assignment renders a decision of the other unnecessary. Omitting so much as has no bearing upon its construction, the special provision in the bill of lading reads as follows: "The packages aforesaid [the cotton] must pass through the custody of several carriers before reaching their destination, and it is understood as a part of the consideration for which said packages are received, that the exceptions from liability made by such carriers respectively in their several bills of lading for through freight shall operate in the carriage by them respectively of said packages as though herein inserted at length; and especially that neither this company, nor any of said carriers, while in transit, or while in depot or place of transshipment, or of landing at place of delivery, shall be liable * * * for loss or damage to hay, hemp, cotton, * * *." In order to sustain the ruling of the court of civil appeals and of the trial court, it must be held that the cotton, while upon the platform of the compress company, was either "in transit" or "in depot," within the meaning of these terms as used in the bill of lading. The rule is elementary that if a written contract, when viewed as a whole, and in the light of the attendant circumstances, reasonably admits of two constructions, that one is to be adopted which is least favorable to the party whose language it is. To no class of contracts has the rule been applied with more stringency than to those in which common carriers seek to limit their liability as it exists at common law. In general, not only are the bills of lading drawn by the carrier, and tendered to the shipper to be accepted by him without alteration, but they are also executed upon forms prepared for the purpose of protecting the interest of the carrier, with all the care and ability which experience in the business and professional skill can bring to bear upon the subject. The rule does not require that a strained construction should be put upon the contract of shipment, in order to favor the shipper; but, rather, that, in case of a reasonable doubt as to which of two constructions best accords with the intent of the parties, that should prevail which is least favorable to the carrier.
Was the cotton, while on the compress platform, "in transit," within the meaning of the bill of lading? It is contended upon the one side that the words "in transit" are the equivalent of the words "in transitu," and that goods in the hands of a carrier are in transit from the moment of delivery to the carrier until they reach the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texarkana & Ft. S. Ry. Co. v. Brass
...of the property covered by it to such new carrier, in that it would be a symbolic delivery of it. Amory Mfg. Co. v. G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 424, 37 S. W. 856, 59 Am. St. Rep. 65; Houston, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hodde, 42 Tex. 471; M. P. Ry. Co. v. Heidenheimer, 82 Tex. 199, 17 S. W. 608, ......
-
Hennigan v. Chargers Football Company
...ref'd, n.r.e.); Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. Tarter, 236 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.Civ.App.1951, writ ref'd, n.r.e.); Amory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S.F.R. Co., 89 Tex. 419, 37 S.W. 856 (Tex. 1896). Since I would affirm, I respectfully 1 The choice-of-law clause in the contract here in issue chooses the ......
-
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Allbritton
...selected the language used in the contract the same should be construed most favorably to appellees. Armory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 89 Tex. 419, 37 S.W. 856, 59 Am.St.Rep. 65; Whittington v. Cameron Compress Co., Tex.Civ. App., 268 S.W. 216; Id., Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 527; Mag......
-
Kessler Export Corp. v. Reliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia
...the sidewalk in the process of loading is relevant but the Court attaches no significance thereto. 2 See Armory Mfg. Co. v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 1896, 89 Tex. 419, 37 S.W. 856, which involved the construction of a bill of lading exempting a common carrier from common law liability excep......