Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. Montfort
| Decision Date | 30 September 1871 |
| Citation | 60 Ill. 175,1871 WL 8108 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO.v.DELOS A. MONTFORT et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. GEORGE WILLARD and Mr. B. C. COOK, for the appellants.
Mr. A. T. EWING, for the appellees.
This was an action originally brought before a justice of the peace, against appellants as common carriers, for the loss of goods delivered to their care, to be carried from Chicago “as per bill of lading, to be issued by W. W. Chandler, agent.”
The bill of lading issued by Chandler, is as follows:
+------------------------------------------------+
¦ ¦CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,¦
+--------+---------------------------------------¦
¦No. 425.¦CHICAGO STATION, May 11, 1870. ¦
+------------------------------------------------+
Received from Tourtelot Bros. the following described packages in apparent good order, (contents and value unknown,) consigned to C. J. Montfort & Co. of St. Paul, State of Minnesota, marked and numbered as per margin, to be transported over the lines of this railway to the company's freight station at LaCrosse, and delivered in good order to the consignee or owner at said station, or to such company or carriers (if the same are to be forwarded beyond said station) whose line may be considered a part of the route to the place of destination of said goods or packages, it being distinctly understood that the responsibility of this company as a common carrier shall cease at the station where delivered to such person or carrier; but it guarantees that the rate of freight for transportation of said packages from the place of shipment to St. Paul, shall not exceed $1 per cwt., and charges advanced by this company.
Upon the following conditions:
These conditions need not be noticed, except the following:
“The responsibility of this company, as carriers, to terminate on the delivery of the freight as per this bill of lading, to the company whose line may be considered a part of the route to the place of destination of said goods or packages.”
A recovery was had by the plaintiff, and an appeal taken to the circuit court, where, upon trial had, the plaintiff obtained judgment, to reverse which the defendant appeals to this court.
The only questions made by appellants were, was it competent for the railroad company to limit their liability as common carriers, to their own line of road, by special agreement; and, second, does the fact that the goods in question were marked C. J. Montfort, St. Paul, Minnesota, via. LaCrosse, prove that the railroad company contracted to be responsible for the goods beyond the limits of their own line, notwithstanding the stipulations of the bill of lading.
These questions have been answered by this court, the first by the case of the Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Morrison, 19 Ill. 136, where it was held that railroad companies were common carriers, and as such, have a right to restrict their liability by such contract as may be specially agreed upon, they remaining liable for gross...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Little Rock & Hot Springs Western Railroad Co. v. Record
-
Indianapolis v. William Juntgen.
...may limit his liability by express contract: Erie R'y Co. v. Wilcox, 84 Ill. 239; U. S. Ex. Co. v. Haines, 67 Ill. 137; C. & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Montfort, 60 Ill. 175; Lawson on Carriers, § 236. Where some parts of a contract are good, and others bad, the good may be enforced if there is no ......
-
Harris v. Grand Trunk Ry
...55; 52 Ill. 123; 22 Wall. 123; 13 R. 1. 578, 581, 572. What the contract was, is for the jury. 18 Amer. & Eng. Cas. 565; 89 Ill. 43, 45; 60 Ill. 175, 178; 22 Wall. 123. A specific price agreed upon for transportation to end of route, beyond defendant's own road, as in the case at bar, is ev......
-
Powers Mercantile Co. v. Wells-Fargo & Co.
...notwithstanding the delivery of a receipt containing a limitation on the liability. Adams Ex. Co. v. Haynes, 42 Ill. 89; C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Montfort, 60 Ill. 175;Adams Ex. Co. v. Stettaners, 61 Ill. 184, 14 Am. Rep. 57;Merchants Dispatch Transportation Co. v. Joesting, 89 Ill. 152;Boscow......