Cleveland, Cincinnati Chicago St Louis Railway Company v. Edward Dettlebach

• Decision Date: 10 January 1916
• Docket Number: No. 229,229
• Parties: CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. EDWARD DETTLEBACH
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

239 U.S. 588

36 S.Ct. 177

60 L.Ed. 453

CLEVELAND, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO, & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v EDWARD DETTLEBACH.

No. 229

Argued November 29, 1915.

Decided January 10, 1916.

Messrs. Edward A. Foote and Frank L. Littleton for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. C. C. Young, Charles L. Stocker, and Jesse A. Fenner for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Pitney delivered the opinion of the court:

The court whose judgment we have here under review sustained a judgment rendered by an inferior state court in favor of Dettlebach and against the railway company for the market value of certain goods which, having been shipped in interstate commerce, were lost through the negligence of the railway company (the terminal carrier) while in its possession as warehouseman at the place of destination; overruling the contention that, because of a limitation of liability agreed upon by plaintiff's agent in consideration of a reduced rate of freight, and contained in the bill of lading that was issued by the initial carrier, and by force of the provisions of the interstate commerce act and its amendments, especially the Hepburn act of 1906 [34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8563], the recovery ought to be limited in accordance with the stipulation. This question, it may be observed, as affecting the warehouseman's responsibility, was not passed upon in Boston & M. R. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 109, 58 L. ed. 868, 874, L.R.A.1915B, 450, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593.

The facts are as follows: Dettlebach, the plaintiff, on September 18, 1911, shipped certain packages of merchandise, described as household goods, over the Chicago, Burlington, & Quincy Railway and connecting lines from Denver, Colorado, consigned to his with at Cleveland, Ohio. They were received for transportation under the terms of a bill of lading, prepared in the form approved and recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission in its report of June 27, 1908 (14 Inters. Com. Rep. 346, 352; 22 Ann. Rep. I. C. C. 1908, p. 57), which contained the following provision:

'It is mutually agreed, as to each carrier of all or any of said property over all or any portion of said route to destination, and as to each party at any time interested in all or any of said property, that every service to be performed hereunder shall be subject to all the conditions, whether printed or written, herein contained (including conditions on back hereof), and which are agreed to by the shipper and accepted for himself and his assigns.'

Among the conditions printed upon the back were the following:

'Sec. 3. . . . 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, unless a lower value has been represented in writing by the shipper or has been agreed upon or is determined by the classification or tariffs upon which the rate is based, in any of which events such lower value shall be the maximum amount to govern such computation, whether or not such loss or damage occurs from negligence. . . .'

* * * * *

'Sec. 5. Property not removed by the party entitled to receive it within forty-eight hours (exclusive of legal holidays) after notice of its arrival has been duly sent or given may be kept in car, depot, or place of delivery of the carrier, or warehouse, subject to a reasonable charge for storage and to carrier's responsibility as warehouseman only. . . .'

Upon the face of the bill of lading was the following declaration signed by plaintiff's agent: 'I hereby declare the valuation of the property shipped under this bill of lading does not exceed $10 per cwt.'

The court found as a fact that the shipper, by consenting to the limitation, received a consideration in the shape of a substantial reduction in the freight rate, and that this supported the agreement to limit the company's liability. No question was made but that the agreement was in accordance with the filed tariff.

The goods thus shipped were transported by the initial carrier to the junction between its line and that of defend- ant, and transported by the latter company to destination, where they arrived on September 27. They were not called for by the consignee, and remained in defendant's possession as warehouseman until November 1, 1911, when, through its negligence, certain of the goods, of the market value of $2,792, were lost.

This action having been brought to recover the value of the goods lost, and the claim of Federal right already mentioned having been made and overruled, a verdict and judgment went against defendant for the market value of the goods, and this was affirmed by the court of appeals, eighth district, state of Ohio. The supreme court of the state declined to review the judgment. The case comes here under § 237, Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1156, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1214].

It is no longer open to question that if the loss had occurred in the course of transportation upon defendant's line, the limitation of liability agreed upon with the initial carrier, as this was, for the purpose of securing the lower of two rates of freight, would have been binding upon plaintiff, in view of the Carmack amendment. Adams Exp. Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 509, 57 L. ed. 314, 321, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 257, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 148; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl. 227 U. S. 639, 648, 654, 57 L. ed. 683, 686, 689, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 668, 57 L. ed. 690, 696, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 397. The question is whether the limitation of...