Baird v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 March 1890
• Citation: 41 F. 592
• Parties: BAIRD v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

41 F. 592

BAIRD v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas.

March 18, 1890

Syllabus by the Court

The act of the general assembly of the state of Arkansas approved February 27, 1885, was not intended to give validity to stipulations in bills of lading which are the result of fraud or mistake.

The material part of a bill of lading on the subject of the freight rate is that which fixes the rate per 100 pounds. Weighing the freight is purely a mechanical process, and may be done at the point of shipment, or at the point of delivery. Where the weight of the merchandise is uniformly the same, the carrier or the consignee may ask to have the weight verified up to the moment of delivery, and it is the weight disclosed by the scales, and not the weight marked on the bill of lading, that controls.

The shipment of merchandise from one state to another is interstate commerce, and any requirement of a state statute in respect of such commerce in conflict with the requirements of the interstate commerce act is of no validity.

This is an action of replevin tried before the court on the following agreed statement of facts:

'(1) That the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company is a railway corporation of Louisiana doing interstate business, and has a line of railway running from New Orleans, La., to Huntington, Miss. (2) That the St. Louis Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company is a railway corporation of Arkansas doing interstate business, and has a railway running from Arkansas City, Ark., to Little Rock. (3) That Huntington, Miss., is on the west bank; the two terminal points being connected by a steam railway transfer boat belonging to the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. (4) That on August 28, 1889, the Iven &amp Son Machinery Company, consignors at New Orleans, La delivered to the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company 6 steam cotton presses for transportation from that point to the plaintiff at Little Rock, Ark. (5) That the consignors made out the bill of lading, and inserted therein the weight of said 6 cotton presses at 20,000 pounds. Exhibit A, attached. (6) That, without questioning this weight, or weighing the goods, the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company executed and delivered the bill of lading, as made out by the consignors, to them. (7) That after said machinery was aboard of its cars the said Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway Company weighed the same, and found that, instead of said 6 presses weighing 20,000 pounds, they actually and in fact weighed 25,550 pounds. (8) That the charges on said machinery were $35 and the rate for the through shipment from New Orleans to Little Rock was 45 cents per 100 pounds. (9) That after weighing the said machinery the Louisville, New Orleans &amp Texas Railway Company shipped the same over its line to Little Rock via Huntington, Miss., under a billing which showed the true weight, to-wit, 25,550 pounds, and not the weight as inserted in the bill of lading by the consignors. Exhibit B. (10) That on its arrival at Huntington, Miss., the said machinery was turned over to the defendant, the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, under said way-bill, which covered the weight as 15,550 pounds. (11) That defendant then transported said machinery to Little Rock, Ark., over its own road, and, on its arrival, presented its bill for charges and freight at the rate of 45 cents per 100 pounds upon 25,550 pounds, making the entire freight bill amount to $149.98. (12) That plaintiff, Thomas W. Baird, refused to pay said freight bill and charges, but presented his bill of lading, and offered to pay the charges and freight as shown thereon, according to the weight of 20,000 pounds, at 45 cents per 100 pounds, which equaled the sum of $125, and demanded that, under the statutes of Arkansas, the defendant should protect said bill of lading. (13) That defendant again weighed said machinery, and found that the same weighed over 25,550 pounds, and so informed plaintiff, and demanded that he should pay the freight according to the true weight. This Thomas W. Baird refused to do, whereupon

...