Chicago St Ry Co v. Co

• Citation: 64 L.Ed. 801,40 S.Ct. 504,253 U.S. 97
• Decision Date: 17 May 1920
• Docket Number: CAULL-DINSMORE,No. 628,628
• Parties: CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. McCO
• Court: United States Supreme Court

253 U.S. 97

40 S.Ct. 504

64 L.Ed. 801

CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

v McCAULL-DINSMORE CO.

No. 628.

Argued and Submitted April 23, 1920.

Decided May 17, 1920.

Mr. O. W. Dynes, of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.

Mr. J. O. P. Wheelwright, of Minneapolis, Minn., for respondent.

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action for the loss of grain belonging to the plaintiff and delivered on November 17, 1915, to the defendant, the petitioner, in Montana, for transportation to Omaha, Nebraska. The grain was shipped under the uniform bill of lading, part of the tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, by which 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 petitioner has paid $1,200.48, being the amount of the loss so computed, but the value of the grain at the place of destination at the time when it should have been delivered, with interest, less freight charges, was $1,422.11. The plaintiff claimed the difference between the two sums of the ground that the Cummins Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act made the above stipulation void. The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, 252 Fed. 664, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 260 Fed. 835.

The Cummins Amendment Act of March 4, 1915, c. 176, 38 Stat. 1196 (Comp. St. § 8604a), provides that the carriers affected by the Act shall issue a bill of lading and shall be liable to the lawful holder of it 'for any loss, damage, or injury to such property * * * and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier * * * from the liability hereby imposed' and further that the carrier 'shall be liable * * * for the full actual loss, damage, or injury * * * notwithstanding any limitation of liability or limitation of the amount or recovery or representation or agreement as to value in any such receipt or bill of lading, or in any contract, rule, regulation, or in any tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission; and any such limitation, without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is hereby declared to be unlawful and void.' Before the passage of this amendment the Interstate Commerce Commission had upheld the clause in the bill of lading as in no way limiting the carriers' liability to less than the value of the goods, but merely offering the most convenient way of finding the value. Shaffer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 8, 12. In a subsequent report upon the amendment it considered that the clause was still valid and not forbidden by the law. 33 I. C. C. 682, 693. The argument for the petitioner suggests that courts are bound by the Commission's determination that the rule is a reasonable one. But the question is of the meaning of a statute and upon that, of course, the courts must decide for themselves.

We appreciate the convenience of the stipulation in the bill of lading and the arguments urged in its favor. We understand that it does not necessarily prevent a recovery of the full actual loss, and that it the price of wheat had gone down the carrier might have had to pay more under this contract than by the common law rule. But the question is how the contract operates upon this case. In this case it does prevent a recovery of the full actual loss, if it is enforced. The rule of the common law is not an arbitrary fiat but an embodiment of the plain fact that the actual loss caused by breach of a contract is the loss of what the contractee would have had if the contract had been performed, less the proper deductions, which have been made and are not in question here. It seems to us, therefore, that the decision below was right, and as, in our opinion, the conclusion is required by the statute, neither the convenience of the clause, nor any argument based upon the history of the statute or upon the policy of the later Act of August 9, 1916, c. 301, 39 Stat. 441 (Comp. St. §§ 8592, 8604a) can prevail against what we understand to be the meaning of the words. Those words seem not only to indicate a broad general purpose but to apply specifically to this very case.

Judgment affirmed.

The Chief Justice dissents for the reasons stated by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Note.—The following is the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as found in 33 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 683: By the Commission:

For many years, if not, indeed, from the origin of railroad transportation in this country, common carriers by railroad have sought, by provisions in shipping contracts, bills of lading, tariff publications, etc., to limit their common-law liability, not only as insurers against loss or damage to property received by them for transportation, but also as tort-feasors for loss or damage caused by their negligence. One method was by a so-called release, executed by shipper and carrier, and intended to be effective, whether the loss or damage was due to negligence of the carrier or to other causes. The courts in different jurisdictions have differed as to the validity of such limitations and they have been the subject of legislation in some of the states.

By adoption of the Carmack Amendment, so called, to the act to regulate commerce, approved June 29, 1906, the Congress provided that a common carrier receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state should issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier to which such property might be delivered, or over whose lines such property might pass, and declared that no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation should exempt such common carrier from the liability thereby imposed. It was provided that nothing in that amendment should deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he had at that time under existing law.

Since that time, beginning in 1913, with Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided in a number of cases, all of which followed Hart v. P. R. R., 112 U. S. 331, that where the shipper has his choice of two rates, the higher carrying unlimited carrier's liability, and in 'a fair, just, and reasonable agreement' declares or agrees that the value of his shipment is a certain sum, and thereby secures a reduced transportation rate, he is bound by that declaration or agreement, estopped from claiming or recovering more than that value in case of loss of or damage to the property, and conclusively presumed to have known the governing tariff.

On March 4, 1915, the following act, amendatory of the act to regulate commerce, and hereinafter called the Cummins Amendment, was approved:

'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that so much of section seven of an act entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to regulate commerce,' approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all acts amendatory thereof, and to enlarge the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission,' approved June w enty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, as reads as follows, to wit:

"That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state shall issue a receipt or a bill of lading therefor, and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered, or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed: Provided, that nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law,' be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows, to wit:

"That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company subject to the provisions of this act receiving property for transportation from a point in one state or territory or the District of Columbia to a point in another state, territory, District of Columbia, or from any point in the United States to a point in an adjacent foreign country shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass within the United States or within an adjacent foreign country when transported on a through bill of lading, and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed; and any such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company so receiving property for transportation from a point in one state, territory, or the District of Columbia to a point in another state or territory, or from a point in a state or territory to a point in the District of Columbia, or from any point in the United States to a point in an adjacent foreign country, or for transportation wholly within a territory shall be liable to the lawful holder of said receipt or bill of lading or to any party entitled to recover thereon, whether such receipt or bill of lading has been issued or not, for the full actual loss,...