Bernard v. Adams Exp. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1910
• Citation: 91 N.E. 325,205 Mass. 254
• Parties: BERNARD v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

205 Mass. 254

91 N.E. 325

BERNARD v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 25, 1910

COUNSEL

Lee M. Friedman, Morse & Friedman, and F. J Sulloway, for plaintiff.

John L Hall, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

This is a suit to recover for the loss of a package delivered to the defendant, a common carrier, for transportation. The package contained hides whose value was $154.80, and the only question is whether the plaintiff can recover that sum or only $50. The case was tried before a judge of the superior court without a jury. A book containing blank receipts, to be filled out and signed by the defendant's agent when goods were received for transportation, had been furnished to the plaintiff, and when this package was delivered, the plaintiff's agent, who was in charge of his office and shipping room, filled in the blank with a description of the bundle and its address. In the column headed 'Value' the words 'Not gvn.' had been written by the defendant's teamster when he took a previous shipment. The receipt was signed for the defendant by its employé. At the head of the receipt is this statement: 'The company's charge is based upon the value of the property, which must be declared by the shipper.' One of the provisions of the contract embodied in the receipt is as follows: 'In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is regulated by the value thereof and is based upon a valuation not exceeding fifty dollars, unless a greater value is declared, the shipper agrees that the value of said property is not more than fifty dollars, unless a greater value is stated herein, and that the company shall not be liable in any event for more than the value so stated, nor for more than fifty dollars if no value is stated herein.' From evidence introduced at the trial the judge made the following findings:

'(1) The method of carriage by the defendant varied with the value of the goods received for carriage.

'(2) The rates of carriage by the defendant were reasonably proportioned to the value of the goods to be carried, and packages of a greater value than $50 were then, and a long time prior thereto, carried by the defendant in a manner and with precautions for caring for them which differed from and were more costly to the defendant than the manner and the precautions then and theretofore established, adopted and used by the defendant for packages of a value not exceeding $50.'

'(4) The bundle in question was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant without any statement of its value or contents in the said receipt and agreement, although the agent of the defendant asked if there was any value.

'(5) The defendant was not further informed of the value or contents of the bundle, and there was no indication on the outside of what its contents were, if any, or of its value.

'(6) The defendant at the time of receiving the bundle, was ignorant of its contents and of its value, and has remained ignorant of its contents and of its value to the present time.

'(7) The bundle was received by the defendant to be carried and delivered only under and upon the terms of the receipt and agreement.

'(8) The defendant received the bundle in the belief that the value of the bundle was not more than $50.

'(9) The methods and precautions adopted by the defendant for safely carrying and delivering the said bundle were based upon the plaintiff's agreement that the value of the bundle did not exceed the sum of $50.

'(10) The defendant, before the plaintiff sued out his writ, tendered to the plaintiff the sum of $50.75, and has brought the same into court for the plaintiff.'

'(12) The plaintiff, for a long time prior to the delivery of the said bundle, had delivered merchandise under exactly the same conditions as was delivered the bundle in question.

'(13) The plaintiff, at the time of the delivery of the said bundle and for a long time prior thereto, was familiar with the terms and conditions contained in the bill of lading or shipping receipt which was given to the plaintiff by the agent of the defendant.

'(14) The receipt was prepared by an agent of the plaintiff, and was handed to the agent of the defendant for signature at the time of the delivery of the bundle.

'(15) The plaintiff assented to the limitations of the defendant's liability contained in the receipt.'

While the package was in the defendant's possession it was lost, and no explanation of its loss was offered. The judge found for the plaintiff for the sum of $50.75. The plaintiff made different requests for rulings to the effect that, under the Carmack amendment of the Hepburn act, so called (Act Cong. Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 386, § 20 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169]; Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 593-595, § 7 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1163]), he was entitled to recover the full value of the property.

The statute provides 'that any common carrier, railroad or transportation company, receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state, shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad or transportation company to which such property may be delivered, or over whose line or lines such property may pass; and no contract, receipt, rule or rugulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed.'

Under the decisions in this commonwealth, and in the Supreme Court of the United States, there is no doubt that, before the enactment of this law, the plaintiff, upon the facts and findings in the present case, would be estopped from claiming more than $50 as the value of the package. Graves v. Lake Shore & Michigan R. R., 137 Mass. 33, 50 Am. Rep. 282; Hill v. Boston Co., 144 Mass. 284, 10 N.E. 836; Cox v. Central Vermont Ry., 170 Mass. 129-136, 49 N.E. 97; Graves v. Adams Express Co., 176 Mass. 280, 57 N.E. 462; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 112 U.S. 331, 5 S.Ct. 151, 28 L.Ed. 717. These decisions are founded on the common law, as it is interpreted in this commonwealth, in the federal courts, and in the courts of many of the states. The question is whether the statute quoted above has changed the law in its application to the facts before us.

One obvious purpose of the Congress was to extend the provisions of the common law so as to make a common carrier receiving property for transportation liable for loss, damage or injury to it, not only while it is in transit over his own lines but while it is in the hands of a connecting carrier. In Greenwald v. Weir, 130 A.D. 696, 115 N.Y.S. 311, it is said that this last is the only liability imposed by the statute. Although the liability stated is made statutory by the enactment,...