Bottum v. Charleston & W.C. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1905 |
| Parties | BOTTUM v. CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Gage Judge.
Action by Bertha C. Bottum against the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
S. J Simpson and M. F. Ansel, for appellant. W. G. Sinnie, for respondent.
On May 16, 1903, the plaintiff, Mrs. Bertha C. Bottum, had a lot of her household goods packed by H. B. Graves, a large dealer in furniture and pictures, and shipped by him from Rochester, N Y., to Greenwood, S.C. One box containing a pastel portrait of Mrs. Bottum's deceased husband and a valuable landscape painting was lost on defendant's road, and this action was brought to recover the value, $377.50. Mrs Bottum's agent, in making the shipment, marked the box containing these pictures "Glass, with Care." The bill of lading was for "household goods," but the kind of goods in each package, except "three trunks crated," was specified. The box of pictures was included in the description, "3 box glass"; the other two boxes really containing glass. The defendant's freight charge on glass was 1 1/2 times first class. On pictures the charge was three times first class, the value being over $50 and not exceeding $200, and a special contract was required when the value was over $200. These rates and requirements it seems, had been approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The packers testified they had always received from consignors pictures marked as glass, and always so marked them in shipping; but there was no evidence that the defendant or any other railroad ever acquiesced in this misdescription. The defendant denied liability for the value of pictures shipped in a box represented by the marks on the box as glass, for which it charged and received a lower rate of freight.
1. The circuit judge charged: In accordance with this instruction, the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the pictures. There are a number of exceptions, but the case turns on the soundness of the proposition just quoted from the charge. It is manifest from the context that, when the circuit judge said, "The railroad company does not contend that Mrs. Bottum made any fraudulent concealment of the contents of the box," he meant there was no intention to defraud by concealment; for the defendant's claim of exemption rested entirely on the ground that it had been deceived as to the contents of the box by the untrue representation of the plaintiff's agent as to a fact recognized by the law as of great importance to the contract of carriage. More definitely, then, the question at issue is, was the circuit judge right in charging, as a matter of law, that in the absence of actual intentional fraud the carrier was liable for the value of pictures, marked ""Glass" on the box and billed as "glass," because it was the duty of the railroad company to make further inquiry about the nature of the contents, and, having failed to do so, it could not avail itself of the misdescription?
It is quite true that, when a railroad company receives a package marked ""Glass," and makes no inquiry as to its kind or value, it is responsible for any article received coming under the general description of glass; but by no possible stretch could a pastel portrait or landscape painting be classed as glass. They may, as in this instance, have glass over them; but the glass cover, like the frame, is incidental, and usually of insignificant value compared to the picture. In marking the box the shipper expressly represented the box to contain glass, and it was therefore, not the duty of the carrier to ask for a repetition of the statement, nor to disbelieve it and open the box to see for itself. It is known to all that for purposes of transportation goods are classified, and that several factors enter into the consideration, such as weight, bulk, value, and the risk of loss or injury. The carrier has a clear right to know the contents of packages offered for shipment, in order that he may fix his compensation and know his risk. The statement of the shipper as to the character of an article not open to inspection is a representation as to a material factor of the contract, upon which the carrier may rely; and, if the value or character of the article actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial