Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railway Company v. Fred Miller 11, 1912
| Decision Date | 08 April 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 17,17 |
| Parties | CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. H. FRED MILLER. Argued March 8 and 11, 1912. Ordered for reargument before full bench |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Arthur R. Wells and Robert B. Scott for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Edwin E. Squires, H. M. Sullivan, and Norris Brown for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 513-517 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:
The question in this case, as in Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 57 L. ed. ——, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148, Just decided, is whether the provisions of § 20 of the act of February 4, 1887 [24 Stat. at L. 386, chap. 104], as amended by the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288), constitute an exclusive regulation of contracts for interstate shipments of property by railroad common carriers, superseding all state regulations upon the same subject.
The action in this case was to recover the full value of a stallion shipped from a point in Iowa to a point in Nebraska, under a valued live-stock contract. The loss occurred in the state of Nebraska through the negligence of the carrier, and the suit was in a court of that state.
The receipt or bill of lading placed a value upon the animal of $100, and was signed by the shipper's agent. It recited that the schedules of rates and regulations filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission provide alternative rates of charges proportioned to the value of the stock delivered for transportation, as declared by the shipper, and that the recovery of the shipper in case of loss or injury should not be in excess of the value thus agreed upon for the purpose of determining the rate.
The plaintiff's claim that the stallion was in fact of the value of $2,000, and that the limitation of recovery stipulated is void under a statute of Iowa, where the contract was made, and also illegal and invalid under a clause in the Constitution of Nebraska, the state in which the loss occurred, and of the forum.
The company relies upon the provisions of the act of 1906 as an exclusive rule regulating every contract for an interstate shipment, and declaring the liability of the carrier, and contends that the regulations provided by the 7th section of that act operate to supersede the legislation of both Iowa and Nebraska, in so far as they applied to interstate shipments.
This defense was overruled in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erisman v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.
...57 L. Ed. 690;Adams v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257;Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, 33 Sup. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 323;Lefebure v. Railway, 160 Iowa, 54, 139 N. W. 1117;Bailey v. Ry., 184 Mo. App. 457, 171 S. W. 44;St. Louis......
-
Thos. G. Hardie & Co v. Western Union Tel. Co
...226 U. S. 491, 33 S. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 517, 33 S. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 323; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. Latta, 226 U. S. 519, 33 S. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 328; Mo., K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 S. ......
-
Cook v. Northern Pacific Railway Company
... ... Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133, ... A. 875; ... Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U.S. 513, 57 ... L. ed. 323, 35 S.Ct. 155; ... ...
-
Erisman v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
...T. R. Co. v. Harriman Bros., 33 S.Ct. 397, 57 L.Ed. 690; Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 33 S.Ct. 155, 57 L.Ed. 323; Lefebure v. American Exp. Co., 160 Iowa 54, 139 1117; Bailey v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., (Mo.) 171 S.W. 44; St. Louis......
-
Neb. Const. art. X § X-4 Railways Declared Public Highways; Maximum Rates; Liability Not Limited
...from limiting their liability by contract. C., St. P., M. and O. R. Co. v. Latta, 226 U.S. 519 (1913); C., B. and Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U.S. 513 Agreement under which constructor of unloading pit agreed to indemnify railroad which owned trackage over pit against all claims arising out of......