Bracht v. San Antonio Ry Co
| Decision Date | 03 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 118,118 |
| Parties | BRACHT v. SAN ANTONIO & A. P. RY. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. I. N. Watson, of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
Messrs. Samuel Herrick, of Washington, D. C., and R. J. Boyle, of San Antonio, Tex., for respondent.
June 10, 1918, the petitioner delivered to respondent railway company at Ingleside, Tax., a carload of vegetables consigned to himself at Dallas, Tex., a point off its lines, where he intended to sell them. He accepted a bill of lading upon the face of which was plainly printed: 'For use only between points within the State of Texas.' It contained no reference to a diversion or reshipment; and the record discloses no rule or regulation by the state statutes or authorities on that subject.
The car moved over respondent's road to Waco and then over the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway to Dallas, where it appears to have arrived promptly with contents in good condition. Upon petitioner's request, made after such arrival, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway forwarded the car to Kansas City over its own lines, took up the original bill of lading, and issued an interstate one acknowledging receipt of the vegetables at Dallas. When the car reached Kansas City the contents were in bad condition, and thereupon petitioner sued respondent as the initial carrier claiming a right to recover damages under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (34 Stat. 584, c. 3591 [Comp. St. §§ 8604a, 8604aa]).
The court below held that the provisions in interstate tariffs permitting reconsignment or change of destination did not apply; that the carrier only agreed to transport to Dallas and was not liable for damage sustained beyond that point.
Respondent's contract appears to have related only to a movement between points in the same state. It had no notice or reason to suppose that the freight would pass beyond the destination specified. The original undertaking was an intrastate transaction, subject, of course, to any applicable rules and regulations prescribed by state authority. The record discloses none; and we are unable to say as a matter of federal law that the tariff schedules for interstate shipments or the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (Comp. St. § 8563 et seq.) constituted part of the agreement. The general principles announced in Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
...in legal contemplation, a delivery." The decision in the case last above cited, following so closely in point of time that announced in the Bracht case, it evident that the opinions in the two cases were intended to be in entire harmony. In the French case it is held that although it appear......
-
Taylor v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
... ... 101, ... 32 S.Ct. 653, 56 L.Ed. 1004; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v ... Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 33 S.Ct. 229, 57 L.Ed ... 443; Bracht v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 254 U.S ... 489, 41 S.Ct. 150, 65 L.Ed. 367. While the rulings by this ... court on the same subject in Augusta ... ...
-
Becher-Barrett-Lockerby Company v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
...between them must be determined from the original bill of lading and the local laws and regulations." The language of the court in the Bracht case is quite here. We have in this case the railroad company indorsing its bill of lading: "Route entirely within Minnesota," showing clearly its un......
-
Taylor v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co, (No. 14896.)
...56 L. Ed. 1004; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U; S. 1ll, 33 Sup. Ct. 229, 57 L. Ed. 443; Bracht v. San Antonio, etc., R. Co., 254 U. S. 489, 41 Sup. Ct. 150, 65 L. Ed. 367. While the rulings by this court on the same subject in Augusta Brokerage Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. ......