Beard v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 February 1890 |
| Citation | 44 N.W. 803,79 Iowa 527 |
| Parties | BEARD ET AL. v. ST. LOUIS, A. & T. H. RY. CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from superior court of Cedar Rapids; JOHN T. STONEMAN, Judge.
Action to recover damages for injury sustained through negligence of defendant by a large quantity of butter shipped by plaintiff from West Union, Iowa, to New Orleans, La.; the butter being carried over a part of the route by defendant. The cause was tried without a jury, and judgment was entered for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.Rickel & Crocker, for appellants.
Mills & Keeler, for appellee.
1. The butter in question was shipped from West Union upon the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway. Its destination was New Orleans. It passed over two other railroads before it reached St. Louis, and by the last one transporting it, the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific, it was delivered to a transfer company, and was carted across the Mississippi river bridge, and delivered to defendant. It was transported to St. Louis in refrigerator-cars, and was in good condition when delivered to defendant, by whom it was put in common cars, and in a few hours transported to Duquoin, Ill., and the cars then delivered to the Illinois Central Railway Company, whose road extended to New Orleans. It was transported by the latter company to New Orleans in the cars in which it was transported by defendant, and was greatly injured by the heat of the cars. It is shown that the butter was delivered by defendant to the Illinois Central Railway Company in good order and condition. It was transported to St. Louis in refrigerator-cars, and in a few hours after it was taken from these cars delivered by defendant to the Illinois Central Railway Company, and was transferred by that company in the common cars in which it was delivered to it. There were two separate shipments of butter involved in this action, but the two transactions present the same state of facts. The receipts executed by the defendants for the butter are in the following form:
“No. 5,632. Cairo Short Line. Wagon No. 91-96. East St. Louis, 5--30--1885. Received from St. Louis Transfer Company, in good order, the following property, for transportation:
Consignee, Wm. Beard & Son.
Destination, New Orleans, La.
Consignor, Wab. Pro. 2,794, M. W.
+----------------------------------------------+
¦Marks.¦Description of Articles. ¦Trans. Chgs.¦¦
+------+-------------------------+------------+¦
¦107 ¦Tubs butter. ¦ ¦¦
+------+-------------------------+------------+¦
¦ ¦O. R. ¦3 48 ¦¦
+------+-------------------------+------------+¦
¦ ¦Chgs., ¦$41 70 ¦ ¦¦
+----------------------------------------------+
H. ROEDERER, Agent.
+------------------+
¦[Copy.]¦D. 5--30. ¦
+------------------+
Nfy. C. A. Lawrence & Co., New Orleans, La.
Mkd., Cloverdale Cry.”
The way-bills accompanying the butter are in this form:
“Weighed at _____. Form 176.
“Gross, _____. St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute R. R. Co.
“Tare, _____.
“Net, _____. (St. Louis & Cairo Short Line.)
“No. W.--B., 59. No. of car, 2,503.
“Whose car, B.
“May 30, 1885.
“From East St. Louis to New Orleans, La.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦Consignee ¦No. ¦Description¦ ¦Rate¦ ¦Prepaid¦ ¦ ¦
¦Shipper.¦and ¦of ¦of ¦Weight.¦per ¦Advanced¦over ¦Freight ¦Freight¦
¦ ¦Destination.¦Pkgs.¦Articles. ¦ ¦100 ¦Charges.¦Other ¦Prepaid.¦Unpaid.¦
¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦lbs.¦ ¦Lines. ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦5132 ¦Wm. Beard & ¦107 ¦Tubs ¦6950 ¦53 ¦3 48 ¦ ¦ ¦36 84 ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦71 ¦Son. ¦ ¦butter. ¦ ¦ ¦40 70 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦ ¦New Orleans,¦ ¦O. R. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦ ¦La. ¦ ¦(Marked ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦ ¦Nfy. C. A. ¦ ¦Cloverdale ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦ ¦Lawrence & ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------+------------+-----+-----------+-------+----+--------+-------+--------+-------¦
¦ ¦Co. ¦ ¦Cry.) ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
2. We are of the opinion that the acceptance of the butter by defendant, marked so as to show its destination, and the receipt and way-bill showing that it was destined to New Orleans, and was to be transported there, with other facts of the case, established prima facie, at least, that defendant contracted to carry the butter to New Orleans. Other facts tend in the same direction. Mulligan v. Railway Co., 36 Iowa, 181;Angle v. Railway Co., 9 Iowa, 487. The way-bill showing the place of the receipt of the goods and their destination is evidence of the contract to transport the goods to the place of destination. Railroad Co. v. Pratt, 22 Wall. 123. But in view of the fact that the butter was received by defendant in Illinois, and therefore the contract for transportation was made in that state, and that contract must be enforced in accord with the law prevailing there, which holds that the acceptance of goods for transportation which are marked for carriage beyond the terminus of the receiving carrier's line of transportation establishes prima facie a contract for transportation to the place of destination of the goods, (Railroad Co. v. Wilcox, 84 Ill. 240;Railway Co. v. Montfort, 60 Ill. 176; Railway Co. v. Frankenberg, 54 Ill. 97; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.
...the Illinois Central was the initial carrier, cited Watterson v. New York Central Railroad Company, supra, and Beard v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. Ry. Co., 79 Iowa 527, 44 N.W. 803, as supporting authority. The Watterson case, however, emphasizes the absence of evidence there "as to which carrie......
-
Barrett v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
... ... "An ... initial carrier is the carrier first receiving the ... goods." (4 Words and Phrases, p. 3610; Beard v. St ... Louis, A. & T. H. Ry. Co., 79 Iowa 527, 44 N.W. 803.) ... The ... mere changing of the destination en route cannot alter the ... ...
- Beard & Sons v. The St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railway Company