Cox v. Am. Express Co.
| Decision Date | 15 January 1910 |
| Parties | COX v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Dubuque County; Robert Bonson, Judge.
Action for value of a thoroughbred saddle mare lost while being transported resulted in a judgment against defendant from which it appeals. Affirmed.Lyon & Lyon, for appellant.
J. P. Frantzen and T. J. Fitzpatrick, for appellee.
The plaintiff's daughter, Mrs. Campbell, had given him a thoroughbred mare at Utica, N. Y., and, as he was unable to make satisfactory arrangements with a freight line for transportation thereof to Dubuque, the agent of defendant at the latter place suggested that he have it shipped by the American Express Company. Negotiations resulted in defendant receiving her September 19, 1906, and she reached Chicago shortly after 3 o'clock on the following afternoon, too late for the outgoing train to Dubuque. The company unloaded and left her in its building near the depot until 7:40 o'clock in the evening, when an employé undertook to lead her to its barns, several blocks distant. She was nervous and became frightened by automobiles and street cars, and finally, according to the employé's story, reared on the hind legs, and fell over backward on the pavement, and died. The plaintiff's claim for the value of the animal at Dubuque, less transportation charges, is based on an alleged oral agreement with defendant's agent at that place, while defendant contends that transportation was undertaken in pursuance of a written contract with plaintiff's daughter at Utica, N. Y., in which the value of the animal was limited to $75. The court instructed that, in order to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, the jury must find that there was an oral agreement such as alleged, that the shipment was undertaken thereunder, and that the death of the animal was due to defendant's negligence. This was tantamount to saying no recovery could be had under the alleged written contract with the daughter, and the jury was expressly so informed.
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is challenged. The agent at Utica testified that Mrs. Campbell called and said she would like to ship a horse to her father at Dubuque, and that he explained to her that she would have to come in when it was brought to the office, and sign a release, and that, if the value was above $75, the charges would be increased; that the animal was brought in some days later, when Mrs. Campbell signed the contract, and was given a duplicate; that he again explained the limitation in value and its effect on the cost of transportation; that she did not want to pay the charges and did not read the contract. On the other hand, Mrs. Campbell testified that there was nothing said by the agent or herself concerning the value of the animal; that she informed him she had nothing to do with the shipment of the horse; that her father had made all arrangements at Dubuque for the transportation; that he then handed her the contract with directions to “sign this,” which she did without reading or explanation, and did not receive a duplicate; that, when she first called, she handed the agent a letter purporting to have been written by the agent at Dubuque to one Storrs, a general agent of defendant, in which the agent requested that the animal be sent by the most direct route, saying that plaintiff had been a good patron of the company, and that plaintiff had arranged with him to have it shipped at a cost of $105; that the agent at Utica, after reading this letter, said he would look up the trains,...
To continue reading
Request your trial