Duntley v. Boston & M. R. R

• Decision Date: 26 July 1890
• Citation: 66 N.H. 263,20 A. 327
• Parties: DUNTLEY v. BOSTON & M. R. R.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

20 A. 327

66 N.H. 263

DUNTLEY

v. BOSTON & M. R. R.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Strafford.

July 26, 1890.

Exceptions from Strafford county.

Case for injuries to the plaintiff's horse while in course of transportation over the defendant's road. Facts found by referees, who reported generally for the plaintiff to recover $350. At the time the horse was shipped the defendant had the following regulation with respect to the transportation of live animals, which was found to be reasonable: "The rates for transporting animals are based upon and intended only for those of ordinary value, viz., horses, $200. * * * When animals of greater value are offered for transportation, agents will charge $1 extra for every $100 additional value, unless the owner agrees to assume all ordinary risk of damage and signs a release. "This horse was shipped as an ordinary horse. The shipper understood if any injury occurred the railroad had a regulation limiting its liability to $200 for an ordinary horse, and, if a higher valuation was given, a higher rate would be charged.

G. E. Cochrane, J. G. Hall and J. Smith, for plaintiff. Worcester & Gafney, for defendant.

CLARK, J. In Hart v. Railroad Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 151, which, like the present, was an action to recover damages from a railroad for injuries received by the plaintiff's horses during transportation by the defendant as a common carrier, the bill of lading issued by the defendant, and signed by the plaintiff, contained a stipulation that the carrier assumed a liability to the extent of an agreed valuation not exceeding $200 for each horse, and the rate of freight was based upon that condition; and it was held that even in case of loss or damage by the negligence of the carrier, the contract should be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of securing a due proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be responsible, and the freight received. In that case, as in this, the plaintiff claimed and offered to prove that his horses were worth much more than $200, but it was held that his recovery must be limited to the amount stated in the bill of lading. The basis of the decision was that a common carrier may prescribe just and reasonable regulations to protect himself against fraud, and fix a rate of charges proportionate to the magnitude of the risk he assumes. The doctrine of Hart v. Railroad Co. is applicable to the facts in the case before us. The referees have found that the plaintiff shipped his horse as an ordinary horse, understanding that the railroad had a regulation limiting its liability in case of injury to $200 for an ordinary horse, and, if a higher valuation was given, a higher rate would be charged. Knowing that the freight charges were measured by the valuation put upon the property, and that the rate was fixed upon the basis that the liability assumed by the defendant would not exceed $200 in case of loss or injury, the plaintiff, by shipping his horse as an ordinary horse, fixed his value for transportation purposes at $200, and, having elected to treat his value as $200 for the purpose of securing a low rate of freight, he cannot insist upon a higher valuation in ease of loss of injury. In...