Chicago Co v. Collins Produce Co

Decision Date03 March 1919
Docket NumberNo. 138,138
Citation249 U.S. 186,63 L.Ed. 552,39 S.Ct. 189
PartiesCHICAGO & E. I. R. CO. v. COLLINS PRODUCE CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Homer T. Dick, of Chicago, Ill., and Lindorf O. Whitnel, of East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 186-188 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Charles Wham and Fred L. Wham, both of Centralia, Ill., for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 188-189 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

On March 21, 1913, the plaintiff in error, the initial carrier, accepted a carload of live poultry from the de fendant in error, the shipper, for transportation from Cypress, Illinois, to Newark, New Jersey, and issued the customary bill of lading, containing the provision that the carrier should not be liable for any loss or damage to the property 'caused by the act of God * * * or the authority of law.'

In the progress of transportation the car arrived at Dayton, Ohio, on the morning of March 25th, and was there delayed by a flood caused by rains so unprecedented that on that date martial law was declared applicable to Dayton and the territory in which the car was held. The flood waters overflowed the rails on which the car stood, but did not reach the body of the car so as to affect the health of the poultry and access to and from it was readily maintained by the caretaker.

On March 31st the state military authorities took possession of the car and distributed its contents to persons rendered destitute by the flood.

Suit against the carrier, based on the bill of lading, commenced in a state court, was removed to the appropriate District Court of the United States.

On the trial of the case the shipper introduced evidence tending to prove that the confiscation was due to the solicitation of representatives of the carrier and to their false representation that the fowls were dying from lack of food and attention and had been or were about to be abandoned by the caretaker, but the railroad company denied this and introduced evidence tending to prove that there was no such solicitation or false representation and that the confiscation was rendered necessary by the exigencies of the situation and by the necessity for supplying food to the people rendered homeless by the flood.

The trial court charged the jury:

That it was the duty of the carrier to transport the property to destination, if it could do so; that it could not overcome the flood or the action of the military authori ties and that if the latter acted of their own volition the shipper could not recover; but that if the military authorities seized the consignment solely upon and by reason of the invitation of the railroad company, and if, but for this confiscation, the property or any part of it, in the exercise of ordinary care, could have been transported to its destination, then the defendant, the carrier, would be liable for the value of such part of it as the jury might find from the evidence could have reached its destination, to be determined by the invoice price at the point of shipment, less any deterioration caused by the delay solely incident to the flood.

The verdict was for the shipper and we are asked to review the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the District Court entered upon that verdict. 235 Fed. 857, 149 C. C. A. 169.

The carrier argues that three errors each requiring reversal of the judgment appear in the record.

The first claim is that the court refused to rule, that by its terms, the Carmack Amendment (Act June 29, 1906, chap. 3591, sec. 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. 595 [Comp. St. §§ 8604a, 8604aa]) casts upon the shipper the burden of proving affirmatively that the loss which occurred on a connecting line was 'caused by' the connecting carrier. But, assuming that the question is presented by the record, which is doubtful, Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U. S. 481, 491, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Northern Pacific Term. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • June 30, 1953
    ...part in dealing with the shipper and in the discharge of its duties to him * * *." Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Co. v. Collins Produce Co., 1919, 249 U.S. 186, 193, 39 S.Ct. 189, 190, 63 L.Ed. 552. 9 "By the general custom of the realm, a common carrier insures the goods, at all even......
  • City of Parkersburg v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 14, 1923
    ... ... delay in so doing may prove a bar to such right. Antisdel ... v. Chicago H.C. Co., 89 F. 308, 311, 32 C.C.A. 216; 22 ... Cyc. 985, notes 82, 83; Clark v. Farrell, 86 ... 1113; Snow v. Alley, 144 Mass. 546, 11 N.E ... 764, 59 Am.Rep. 119; Worthington v. Collins, 39 ... W.Va. 506, 19 S.E. 527 ... In my ... judgment, the decision of the lower ... ...
  • The Vallescura
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1934
    ...from liability. See Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co., 93 U.S. 174, 184, 23 L.Ed. 872; Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. Collins Produce Co., 249 U.S. 186, 192, 193, 39 S.Ct. 189, 63 L.Ed. 552; New York C. Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 379, 380, 21 L.Ed. To such exceptions ......
  • Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. State of Russia
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • August 8, 1927
    ...the carrier and makes the carrier an insurer, and is justified in the principles announced in Chicago & Eastern Illinois R. Co. v. Collins Produce Co., 249 U. S. 186, 39 S. Ct. 189, 63 L. Ed. 552; Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; Bank of Kentucky v. Express Co., 93 U. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT