Boston v. Piper

Decision Date15 April 1918
Docket NumberNo. 208,208
PartiesBOSTON & M. R. R. v. PIPER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from 439-440 intentionally omitted] Mr. Edwin W. Lawrence, of Rutland, Vt., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from 440-441 intentionally omitted] Mr. Marvelle C. Webber, of Rutland, Vt., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by Piper against the Boston & Maine Railroad to recover damages for loss occasioned by delay in delivering cattle as a result of the company's negligence. The plaintiff recovered damages and the judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Vermont. 90 Vt. 176, 97 Atl. 508.

The plaintiff shipped the cattle upon paying the reduced rate for shipment thereof under the Uniform Live Stock Agreement containing, among other things, the following:

'The same has been received by said carrier for itself and on behalf of connecting carriers for transportation subject to official tariffs, classifications and rules of the said company and upon the following terms and conditions which are admitted and accepted by the said shipper as just and reasonable. * * * That in the event of any unusual delay or detention of said live stock caused by the negligence of said carrier or its employes or its connecting carriers or their employes or otherwise the said shipper agrees to accept as full compensation for all loss or damage sustained thereby the amount actually expended by said shipper in the purchase of food and water for said stock while so detained. * * * And E. G. Piper does hereby acknowledge that he had the option of shipping the above-described live stock at a higher rate of freight according to the official tariffs, classifications and rules of the said carrier and connecting carriers and thereby receiving the security of the liability of the said carrier and connecting railroad and transportation companies as common carriers of the said live stock upon their respective roads and lines, but has voluntarily decided to ship same under this contract at the reduced rate of freight above first mentioned.'

The tariffs in effect at the time the shipment moved provided for a rate of $42 when the Uniform Live Stock Agreement was signed and that:

'Live stock will be taken at the reduced rates fixed in the tariff only when a uniform live stock contract is executed by the station agent and the consignor, and when the release on the back of said contract is executed by man or men who are to accompany said live stock. If consignor refuses to execute a uniform live stock contract, the live stock will be charged ten (10) per cent. higher than the reduced rates specified herein provided, that in no case shall such higher charge be less than one (1) per cent. per one hundred pounds.'

The company's tariffs were duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and contained a copy of the Uniform Live Stock Contract as above set forth.

Interstate shipments of the character here in contr versy made upon bills of lading, and under tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, have been the subject of frequent consideration in this court. The binding character of the stipulations of the bill of lading and of the rates as fixed in the filed tariffs, have been recognized and enforced. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Starbird, Adm'r, 243 U. S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. Ed. 917, and previous cases in this court therein cited.

The Carmack Amendment (Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8604a, 8604aa) requires the initial carrier to issue a bill of lading, and carriers are obliged to carry the articles shipped at the rates fixed in the published tariffs. Many decisions of this court have held that the carrier may offer to the shipper and the shipper may be bound by a contract which limits recovery to a valuation declared by the shipper in consideration of the reduced rate for the carriage of the freight. This rule was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Northern Pacific Term. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 30 Junio 1953
    ...it became "impractical" to operate did not excuse the carrier's failure to cross a picket line. Boston & Main Railroad v. Piper, 1918, 246 U.S. 439, 445, 38 S.Ct. 354, 355, 62 L.Ed. 820. "While this provision was in the bill of lading, the form of which was filed with the Railroad Company's......
  • Edwards v. Carter, 78-1166
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 1 Junio 1978
  • US Gold Corp. v. Federal Exp. Corp., 88 Civ. 5692 (PKL).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 31 Agosto 1989
    ...Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 509-510, 33 S.Ct. 148, 153-54, 57 L.Ed. 314 (1913) and Boston & Main Railroad v. Piper, 246 U.S. 439, 444, 38 S.Ct. 354, 355, 62 L.Ed. 820 (1918)). In evaluating whether those requisites are met, courts have considered such factors as: (1) whether the......
  • Lichten v. Eastern Airlines
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 22 Mayo 1951
    ...by any proof, nor could the commission by any order have made it valid."21 Directly in point is Boston & Maine Railroad v. Piper, 246 U.S. 439, 445, 38 S.Ct. 354, 355, 62 L.Ed. 820. There the form of a bill of lading, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, contained a provision "th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT