Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Murphey
| Decision Date | 09 January 1905 |
| Docket Number | No. 111,111 |
| Citation | 25 S.Ct. 218,49 L.Ed. 444,196 U.S. 194 |
| Parties | CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. A. O. MURPHEY and J. L. Hunt, Partners, Doing Business as A. O. Murphey & Hunt |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The plaintiff in error brings this case here to review the judgment of the supreme court of Georgia, affirming a judgment of the trial court, in favor of the defendants in error, for the damages sustained by them on the shipment of certain grapes, as hereinafter more particularly stated. First reported, 113 Ga. 514, 53 L. R. A. 720, 38 S. E. 970, and again, on appeal from judgment on second trial, 116 Ga. 863, 60 L. R. A. 817, 43 S. E. 265.
The trial court gave judgment for the shippers of the grapes, who were plaintiffs below, for the amount of the difference between the market price of the grapes as shipped in good order and the amount they actually received for the same in their damaged condition, being the sum of $434.55. The action was commenced in the Pike county court, in the state of Georgia, and the petition averred that on July 31, 1897, the petitioner shipped a carload of grapes from Barnesville, Georgia, consigned to Rocco Brothers, Omaha, Nebraska, by way of the Central of Georgia Railway Company. The freight was to be conveyed by more than two common carriers, the initial carrier being the Central of Georgia Railway Company, and the freight was shipped under a contract of shipment in which it was provided that the responsibility of each carrier should cease upon delivery to the next 'in good order.' The grapes were greatly damaged on the route between Barnesville and Omaha, and the damage resulted from the negligence of the common carriers on the route. The petitioners applied to the plaintiff in error, the initial carrier on the route, and served it with an application in writing August 20, 1897, in which they requested that the railway company should trace the freight, and inform the petitioners, in writing, when, how, and by which carrier the freight was damaged, and also that the company should furnish the petitioners the names of the parties and their official position, if any, by whom the truth of the facts set forth in the information could be established. The railroad company failed to trace the freight and give the information in writing within the thirty days required by law, wherefore the petitioners averred that the railroad company became indebted to the petitioners to the amount of the damage to the grapes as stated.
The plaintiff in error demurred to the petition, the demurrer was overruled, and it then put in an answer denying many of the allegations of the petition. Upon the trial it appeared that the grapes were shipped from Barnesville, Georgia, to Omaha, Nebraska, and they were 'routed' by the shippers over the Central of Georgia, then the Western & Atlantic, then the Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis, then the Louisville & Nashville, and then the Wabash Railroads. The initial carrier, the plaintiff in error, issued to the shippers, A. O. Murphey and Hunt, a bill of lading for the carload of grapes, which showed the routing as above stated, and the bill was signed by Murphey and Hunt, as the contract between the plaintiff in error and themselves. It contained a promise 'to carry (the grapes) to said destination, if on its road, or to deliver to another carrier on the route to said destination, subject, in either instance, to the conditions named below, which are agreed to in consideration of the rate named.' Omaha, Nebraska, is not on the road of the plaintiff in error. Paragraph 5 of the bill of lading, under which the shipment of grapes was made, reads as follows:
The grapes were carried under the contract contained in the bill of lading, and arrived at Omaha, in the state of Nebraska, in a damaged condition.
The law under which the action was brought is found in §§ 2317 and 2318 of the Code of Georgia of 1895. Those sections are set forth in full in the margin.
On the 20th day of August, 1897, the shippers availed themselves of these provisions of the statute, and duly demanded of the plaintiff in error that it should trace the grapes, and inform the shippers, in writing, when, how, and by which carrier the grapes were damaged, and the names of the parties and their official position, if any, by whom the truth of the facts set out in the information could be established. They also demanded that the information should be furnished within thirty days from the date of the application. The plaintiff in error, although it endeavored so to do, failed to furnish the information within the time mentioned in the statute. It offered to prove on the trial that the car in which the grapes were originally shipped at Barnesville, on the road of the plaintiff in error, reached Atlanta, Georgia, the end of the line of the plaintiff in error, in due time, and that the grapes were then in good order, and the car was promptly delivered to the next connecting line, that is, the Western & Atlantic Railroad, and by that road it was delivered to the Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railroad Company, at Nashville, Tennessee, with the grapes in like good order and condition. The evidence was rejected, the court holding that the plaintiff
Sec. 2317. When any freight that has been shipped, to be conveyed by two or more common carriers to its destination, where, under the contract of shipment or by law, the responsibility of each or either shall cease upon the delivery to the next 'in good order,' has been lost damaged, or destroyed, it shall be the duty of the initial or any connecting carrier, upon application by the shipper, consignee, or their assigns, within thirty days after application, to trace said freight, and inform said applicant, in writing, when, where, and how, and by which carrier said freight was lost, damaged, or destroyed, and the names of the parties and their official position, if any, by whom the truth of the facts set out in said information can be established.
Sec. 2318. If the carrier to which application is made shall fall to trace said freight and give said information, in writing, within the time prescribed, then said carrier shall be liable for the value of the freight lost, damaged, or destroyed, in the same manner and to the same amount as if said loss, damage, or destruction occurred on its line in error had failed to comply with the conditions of the statute, and that it was therefore liable for the amount of the damage sustained by the petitioners on whatsoever road the damage actually occurred.
John I. Hall, Henry C. Cunningham, Lloyd Cleveland,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arkansas Southern Railway Company v. German National Bank
... ... 650, 40 L.Ed. 1105, 16 S.Ct. 934, the court held ... that a statute of the State of Georgia, "requiring every ... telegraph company with a line wholly or partly within that ... State to ... v. Alabama , 128 ... U.S. 96, 32 L.Ed. 352, 9 S.Ct. 28 ... In ... Central of Georgia Railway Company v ... Murphey , 196 U.S. 194, 49 L.Ed. 444, 25 S.Ct. 218, ... cited ... ...
-
Reid & Beam v. Southern Ry. Co.
...of traffic, the breaking of bridges, accidental fires, washouts, or other unavoidable consequences of heavy weather." And in Railway v. Murphey, supra, Mr. Peckham, delivering the opinion, said.: "The effect of such a statute is direct and immediate upon interstate commerce. It directly aff......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. State
...L. Ed. 772; American Steel & Wire Co. v. Speed, 192 U.S. 500, 24 S. Ct. 365, 48 L. Ed. 538. See, also, Central Georgia R. R. Co. v. Murphey, 196 U.S. 194, 25 S. Ct. 218, 49 L. Ed. 444, and Southern R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 107 Va. 771, 60 S. E. 70, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 364. ¶22 In Central ......
-
Morris-Scarboro-Moffitt Co. v. Southern Express Co.
... ... by the Morris-Scarboro-Moffitt Company against the Southern ... Express Company for loss of goods ... discretion, citing case of Tullis v. Railway, 175 ... U.S. 348, 20 S.Ct. 136, 44 L.Ed. 192, and other ... 934, ... 40 L.Ed. 1105; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, ... 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166; Railway v ... Railway v. Murphey, 196 U.S. 195, 25 S.Ct. 218, 49 ... L.Ed. 444, Railway v ... ...