Eckles v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 18 April 1905 |
Citation | 87 S.W. 99,112 Mo. App. 240 |
Parties | ECKLES et al. v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. Plaintiffs purchased meat of a packing company, requesting it to ship it to a certain point. The agent of defendant railroad company solicited the shipment, and furnished the agent of the packing company with a blank form of contract, which was filled out and signed by defendant's agent, and plaintiffs paid the freight. Held, that the contract was binding between defendant and plaintiffs, although not signed by the latter or by the packing company as their agent.
2. There is no presumption that the statutes of one state exist in another.
3. Where a carrier is paid full freight for carriage to a destination beyond the termination of the carrier's line, the contract is to carry the goods through to their destination, and the first carrier is responsible for the delivery of the goods.
4. A carrier contracting to transport goods to a point beyond the termination of its own line may by contract protect itself against liability for injury and delay not occurring on its own line.
5. Defendant railroad company contracted to carry freight to a point beyond its line; the contract providing that the carrier should be liable only for the safe carriage of the goods on its own road, that the exceptions from liability made by all the carriers through whose hands the goods might pass should respectively operate in the carriage by them respectively, and that the liability of the companies as common carriers terminated on the arrival of the goods at the terminal station. The contract also provided that the goods should be transported over defendant's own line to a certain point, and there delivered to a certain named connecting carrier, with which defendant had a traffic arrangement. The freight charges for the entire distance were received by defendant. Held, that defendant was liable for a loss not occurring on its own line; the exemption clause in the contract of shipment being merely for the purpose of fixing liability as between the several carriers, and not restricting defendant's liability to the shipper.
6. Where a carrier agreed to transport freight to a point beyond its own line by means of a certain designated connecting carrier, delivery to a different connecting carrier was a breach of the contract.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Franklin Ferriss, Judge.
Action by Robert Eckles and others against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The material averments of the petition on which the case was tried are as follows: Defendant owned and operated a railroad running from South Omaha, Neb., to Pueblo, Colo., where it connects with other lines of railroad running from said point to the city of Los Angeles, Cal. Defendant is a common carrier of goods from South Omaha to Pueblo, and, by itself and over roads connecting with it at Pueblo, on to Los Angeles. On the 14th day of November, 1890, plaintiffs purchased of Swift & Co. 1,756 pieces of meat, known to the trade as "sweet pickled bellies," at $1,200, and requested Swift & Co. to ship the meat to Los Angeles, and pay the freight thereon. Swift & Co., in pursuance of said instructions, made a contract in writing (filed with the petition) by which defendant agreed to transport the goods to Los Angeles for $350, which was then and there paid to the defendant. The defendant agreed to transport the goods over its own road to Pueblo, from Pueblo to Trinidad over the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, and from Trinidad over the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad to Los Angeles. The goods were loaded into a refrigerator car in good condition; the car iced and delivered to defendant, at South Omaha, on the 14th day of November, 1890; and on the 15th day of November, 1890, Swift & Co. drew a draft on plaintiffs for the price of the goods, plus the freight, amounting in all to $1,555, which plaintiffs paid. The goods reached Pueblo over defendant's road on the 17th day of November, 1890, and reached Trinidad on the 18th of November; but the defendant wholly failed and refused to transport the goods further than Trinidad, or to deliver or cause them to be delivered to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company, or any other carrier at that point, for transportation, and for a period of 14 days failed to forward the goods from Trinidad to Los Angeles. After a lapse of 14 days defendant caused the goods to be transported by a connecting carrier other than the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad, and they reached Los Angeles on the 15th day of December, 1890. During the 14 days' delay in forwarding the goods from Trinidad, defendant neglected to ice the car in which the goods were shipped, and when they arrived at Los Angeles the meat was spoiled, soured, and tainted, and was sold for soap grease for the sum of $86.
The answer admitted the receipt of the meat from Swift & Co., and the making of the contract in writing with said company, which was filed with the petition as an exhibit, but denied that the contract imposed upon defendant the duty of transporting the meat beyond Pueblo, the western terminus of its line, or of forwarding it by way of other lines of railway to its destination, and alleged the performance of its duty under the contract by transporting the goods to Pueblo in good condition and on time, and by delivering them to the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, a connecting carrier. So much of the contract for the carriage of the goods as is material to the issues is as follows:
The evidence shows that the shipment was solicited by Daniel King, contracting agent for the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and that he furnished the routing. The evidence also tends to show that the car in which the meat was shipped arrived at Pueblo in good order and on time, and that the meat was then in good condition; that it was promptly delivered to the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad, by which it was hauled to Trinidad and placed on a connecting line between the Denver & Rio Grande and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Companies on November 19th, and by the latter road taken into its yards, a transfer sheet delivered to its agent without objection, and $200 tendered to pay the freight, which tender was refused on the claim that the road was entitled to the same rate as from Missouri River points. The evidence further tends to show that there was no traffic arrangement between the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company to receive transcontinental freight at Trinidad for less than the local rate ($1.30 per 100 pounds), but there was a traffic arrangement between the two roads that transcontinental freight received by the Missouri Pacific should be delivered to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé at Kansas...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walton v. A. B. C. Fireproof Warehouse Co.
...Mo. 480, 75 S.W. 638; Western Sash Co. v. Railway, 177 Mo. 641, 76 S.W. 998; Davis v. Railway, 126 Mo. 69, 28 S.W. 965; Eckles v. Railroad, 112 Mo.App. 240, 249-250, 253; Goldsmith v. Railroad, 12 Mo.App. 479; v. Railroad, 9 Mo.App. 159, 166; Hutchinson on Carriers (3 Ed.), Sec. 252, p. 256......
-
Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell
...v. Railway Co., 133 Mich. 596, 95 N. W. 724, 103 Am. St. Rep. 464;Ireland v. Railroad Co., 105 Ky. 400, 49 S. W. 188;Eckles v. Railway Co., 112 Mo. App. 240, 87 S. W. 99;Halliday v. Railroad Co., 74 Mo. 159, 41 Am. Rep. 309;Jennings v. Railway Co., 127 N. Y. 438, 28 N. E. 394;Condict v. Rai......
- Eckles v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
-
Walton, Jr., v. A.B.C. Fireproof Warehouse Co.
...etc., Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 155 Mo. App. 175, 134 S.W. 111; McLendon v. Wabash R. Co., 119 Mo. App. 128, 95 S.W. 943; Eckles v. Railroad, 112 Mo. App. 240, 249; Crouch v. Railway, 42 Mo. App. 248, 249. 3. There was no contract for "through shipment" in this case. Miller v. Missouri, &......