Bussey v. Memphis & Little Rock R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1882
• Citation: 13 F. 330
• Parties: BUSSEY v. MEMPHIS & LITTLE ROCK R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

13 F. 330

BUSSEY v. MEMPHIS & LITTLE ROCK R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas.

April Term, 1882

W. G Whipple, for plaintiff.

B. C Brown, for defendant.

CALDWELL D. J.

Between the seventh and the twenty-fifth of November, 1878, the plaintiff's agent delivered to the defendant company at Little Rock, and other stations in that vicinity, 602 bales of cotton for shipment, consigned to the plaintiff at New Orleans. The bills of lading specify and guaranty a through rate of freight to New Orleans, and are indorsed in ink 'via river from Hopefield,' and are identical in every respect, except that some declare the cotton is received 'to be transported from Little Rock, Arkansas to New Orleans, Louisiana, and delivered to the consignee, or a connecting common carrier,' while in other 'Hopefield, Arkansas,' is inserted in lieu of 'New Orleans, Louisiana,' where those words occur in the above extract. The plaintiff having shown an unreasonable delay in delivering the cotton, the burden is cast on the defendant to show some fact which will justify or excuse that delay. This the answer attempts to do by stating that a quarantine, established to prevent the spread of yellow fever, stopped the defendant's road from running from the fourteenth of August to the twenty-eight of October, and that owing to this fact at the time plaintiff's cotton was received 'large quantities of freight had accumulated at Little Rock and other depots upon its line for transportation to Hopefield, and other large quantities had accumulated in the country, and was afterwards delivered for transportation, and that owing to such accumulation it could not forward said cotton upon the day of reception, but that it did carry said cotton to Hopefield as soon as it could do so under the circumstances. ' And, touching any delay at Hopefield, the answer states that previous to the receipt of the cotton a quarantine had been in force along the Mississippi river, which prevented boats from navigating that river between Cairo and New Orleans, and that during the existence of the quarantine 'large quantities of freight accumulated on the banks of the river for transportation to New Orleans, and boats coming down the river to Hopefield came laden to their utmost capacity, and could take no more freight; and said cotton was forwarded from Hopefield by the very first boat that could take it. ' These statements in the answer accord with the facts in the case and are fatal to the defense.

A railroad company is not bound to undertake the carriage of goods beyond the terminus of its road, but if it does enter into a contract to do so it is bound by it, and is under the same obligation to furnish means of conveyance beyond the line of its own road that it is upon it. And a railroad company which has the requisite rolling stock and equipments to carry without delay, the freights usually offered, is not bound to receive goods which it is not at the time able to carry, by reason of some accidental or extraordinary increase in the public demand for transportation, occurring without the fault of the company. In such case the company may rightfully decline to receive freights offered, and which it cannot carry without delay. But if it does receive the goods it can only relieve itself from responsibility for delay in carrying them, resulting from a previous accumulation of freight at its depots for...