Baltimore Co v. Leach 15 16, 1919

• Decision Date: 10 March 1919
• Docket Number: No. 132,132
• Citation: 63 L.Ed. 570,249 U.S. 217,39 S.Ct. 254
• Parties: BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al. v. LEACH. Argued Jan. 15 & 16, 1919
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

249 U.S. 217

39 S.Ct. 254

63 L.Ed. 570

BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al.

v LEACH.

No. 132.

Argued Jan. 15 & 16, 1919.

Decided March 10, 1919.

Messrs. Wm. W. Crawford and Charles H. Gibson, both of Louisville, Ky., for petitioners.

Messrs. Frank W. Hackett and John S. Blair, both of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Leach sued the petitioners for damages sustained en route by cattle delivered at East St. Louis Ill., October 1, 1914, for shipment to Georgetown, Ky. In defense the carriers set up non-compliance with the following provision contained in bill of lading issued as required by act of Congress.

'That no claim for damages which may accrue to the said shipper under this contract shall be allowed or paid by the said carrier, or sued for in any court by the said shipper, unless a claim for loss or damages shall be made in writing verified by the affidavit of the shipper or his agent, and delivered to the general freight agent of said carrier at his office in Cincinnati, Ohio, within five days from the time said stock is removed from said car or cars, and that if any loss or damage occurs upon the line of connecting carrier, then such carrier shall not be liable unless a claim shall be made in like manner and delivered in like time, to some proper officer or agent of the carrier on whose line the loss or injury occurs.'

This averment was not denied; but the shipper replied that he promptly advised the railroad's agent at Georgetown of all essential facts and maintained that requirement in respect of written notice to general freight agent had been waived.

The point involved has been discussed in our recent opinions and we can find nothing which takes this case out of the rule requiring compliance with a provision in a bill of lading like the one above quoted. St. L., I. Mt. & So. Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. Ed. 917; Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U. S. 446, 39 Sup. Ct. 139, 63 L. Ed. 350, decided January 13, 1919.

The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Mr. Justice PITNEY and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS concur in the result.

Mr. Justice CLARKE dissenting.

In this case the shipper sued two connecting interstate carriers for damages to a carload of cattle, caused by delay in transit. Three died in the car and four more within three or four days of arrival at destination and the defense sustained by the court is failure to notify the carrier of claim for damages within five days of unloading.

The carrier pleaded that one of the terms of the bill of lading was the five-day limitation, quoted in the opinion of the court. This was immediately preceded, in the same paragraph, by the...