Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co.
| Decision Date | 22 September 1919 |
| Docket Number | 5314. |
| Parties | CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. McCAULL-DINSMORE CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
F. W Root, of Minneapolis, Minn. (Nelson J. Wilcox, of Chicago Ill., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
J. O P. Wheelwright, of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant in error.
Before HOOK and STONE, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
Action for loss of interstate shipment of grain. The facts were stipulated. The shipment was made under a bill of lading or shipping contract wherein it was provided that:
'The amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier is liable shall be computed on the basis of the value of the property at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, including freight charges, if paid.'
The contract was in a form like that included in the legally published tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which tariffs provided, among other things, a rate of transportation based on and controlled by said form of bill of lading, and that, in cases where the shipper was not agreeable to shipping under the terms of such form, then a higher rate was to be charged. The fair market value of the shipment at destination at the time when it should have been delivered, with interest, and less freight charges, was $1,422.11. The railway has paid thereon $1,200.48, the value at origin at time of shipment. From a judgment for the difference the railway has taken its writ of error.
The controversy is over the difference, and the sole question here presented is whether the origin value or the destination value should govern where the shipment was under such a form of interstate bill of lading. At the time of this shipment the so-called Cummins Amendment of March 4, 1915 (38 Stat. 1196, c. 176 (Comp. St. Sec. 8604a)), contained the law in this respect governing form of contracts for interstate shipment. That statute provided:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Railway Express Co. v. Galt
...this case was appealed by the railroad company after the judgment of the district court was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals; see 260 F. 835, and was again appealed by the railroad company and the case was again affirmed by the supreme court of the United States. See 253 U.S. 97. In......
-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Clarksdale Coal & Grain Co.
...& M. V. R. R. Co. v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co., 134 Miss. 846; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. McCall-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97, 64 L.Ed. 801, 260 F. 835; Leominister Fuel Company v. Railroad Company case), 154 N.E. 831; Heidritter Lumber Company v. Central Railroad Company, 100 N.J.L. 402, 12......
-
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. H. Rouw Co.
...we would disturb the law of long standing. In McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., D.C., 252 F. 664, affirmed in 8 Cir., 260 F. 835, 836, the question was whether a bill of lading which fixed value at the point of origin was a limitation of liability. Mr. Justice Stone, spe......
-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co
...at the time they should have been delivered. McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, 252 F. 664; 260 F. 835; 253 U.S. 97 L.Ed. 801); 10 C. J., secs. 606, 395. Appellant, however, does not contend that this is not the law, but contends that the resale or retail......