Brown Coal Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1923
• Docket Number: 35038
• Citation: 192 N.W. 920,196 Iowa 562
• Parties: BROWN COAL COMPANY, Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

192 N.W. 920

196 Iowa 562

BROWN COAL COMPANY, Appellee,
v.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

No. 35038

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 3, 1923

REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 16, 1923.

Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--MILES W. NEWBY, Judge.

ACTION to recover damages for loss of a portion of a carload of coal, while in transit over the line of defendant's railroad from a point in Illinois to Sioux City. The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $ 25.66, and the trial court allowed an appeal to this court.--Reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Helsell & Helsell and Henderson, Fribourg & Hatfield, for appellant.

W. M. Morheiser, for appellee.

FAVILLE, J. PRESTON, C. J., EVANS and ARTHUR, JJ., concur.

OPINION

FAVILLE, J.

Appellee is a coal dealer in Sioux City. Appellant is a common carrier. On or about February 19, 1921, the appellant received for transportation to the appellee at Sioux City a certain car, containing 109,700 pounds of 6-inch lump coal. When the car arrived at its destination, there was a shortage of 5,200 pounds. The appellee offered testimony to the effect that the retail price of coal in Sioux City, in small lots, at the time of the loss, was $ 15 per ton, and that the items making up said retail price were as follows:

[196 Iowa 563]

Mine cost	$ 4.05
Freight	4.98
Unloading	.35
Cartage	1.75
War Tax	.15
Overhead	1.60
Profit	2.12

The trial court, by instructions, required the jury to deduct from the retail value of $ 15 per ton at Sioux City, the two items consisting of freight, $ 4.98, and war tax of 15 cents per ton. The other items were allowed by the jury in making up the amount of the verdict.

The shipment was in interstate commerce. The loss was of a portion of a carload lot, being 5,200 pounds out of the total shipment of 109,700 pounds. The purchaser was a coal dealer in Sioux City, selling coal at wholesale and retail, and handling from 150,000 to 200,000 tons of coal per year. At the time of the shipment, the appellee had on hand in its yards a quantity of coal of the kind contained in this shipment, sufficient to meet the ordinary and usual demands of its business. The coal in question had not been purchased to supply any particular customer, nor had the same been sold by the dealer under any contract which required the receipt of this shipment, in order to be filled.

The evidence shows that the appellee conducts a retail coal business at Sioux City, and also sells coal in carload lots in the territory adjacent to Sioux City and to the surrounding towns, such as Le Mars, Alton, Yankton, Carroll, Moville, Correctionville, and Sergeant Bluff, and that the price charged for this particular grade of coal to dealers in surrounding towns, at the time in question, was $ 4.35 per ton, the dealers paying the freight, war tax, unloading charge, and hauling charge, themselves.

Upon this state of facts, what was the true measure of damages for the loss suffered by the appellee? The general rule is established at common law that, where goods are lost by a carrier while in transit, the measure of damages is the market value of the goods shipped, at the place of destination at the time when delivery should have been made, less the freight [196 Iowa 564] charges to the point of destination, unless they have been previously paid. Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) Section 1360; Southern P. Co. v. D'Arcais, (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S.W. 813; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Stock & Sons, 104 Va. 97 (51 S.E. 161); Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Ft. Dearborn C. & E. Co., 280 F. 264; Central Georgia R. Co. v. American Coal Co., 28 Ga.App. 95 (110 S.E. 320); Byram v. Payne, 58 Utah 536 (201 P. 401); Crutchfield v. Hines, 239 Mass. 84 (131 N.E. 340); Woonsocket M. & P. Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 239 Mass. 211 (131 N.E. 461); Morrell v. Northern P. R. Co., 46 N.D. 535 (179 N.W. 922); Conover v. Wabash R. Co., 208 Ill.App. 105; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Estill, 147 U.S. 591, 37 L.Ed. 292, 13 S.Ct. 444; Northern Trans. Co. v. McClary, 66 Ill. 233; Kansas City & M. R. Co. v. Oakley, 115 Ark. 20 (170 S.W. [192 N.W. 921] 565); Allen v. Adams Exp. Co., 77 Pa.Super. 174; Eastern Coal & Exp. Corp. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., (Va.) 113 S.E. 857; 10 Corpus Juris 395, and many cases cited.

This general rule has been applied under a great variety of circumstances, in almost innumerable cases. It became quite a general practice among carriers to abridge or limit their common-law liability for destruction to or loss of property in transit, by terms and provisions inserted in the contract of shipment. This practice led to the adoption of legislation, both state and Federal, limiting or abrogating the provisions of the common-law rule. It is unnecessary that we attempt to review these various enactments.

Among these enactments was the act of March 4, 1915, Chapter 176, 38 Statutes at Large 1196, the Cummins Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. This amendment provides that the carrier affected by the act "shall issue a receipt or a bill of lading * * * and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property * * * and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier * * * from the liability hereby imposed;" and further, that the carrier "shall be liable * * * for the full actual loss, damage, or injury * * * notwithstanding any limitation of liability or limitation of the amount of recovery or representation or agreement as to value in any such receipt or bill of lading, or in [196 Iowa 565] any contract, rule, regulation, or in any tariff filed with the interstate commerce commission; and any such limitation without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is hereby declared to be unlawful and void."

The shipment in controversy in this action was an interstate shipment, and hence it comes under the terms and provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Cummins Amendment. Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 57 L.Ed. 314, 33 S.Ct. 148. It is to be observed that, by the terms of said amendment, the carrier becomes liable for "the full actual loss" suffered. The question before...