Ga. Southern & F. Ry. Co v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Citation: 121 Ga. 231,48 S.E. 807
• Parties: GEORGIA SOUTHERN & F. RY. CO. v. JOHNSON, KING & CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 807

121 Ga. 231

GEORGIA SOUTHERN & F. RY. CO.

v.JOHNSON, KING & CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 11, 1904.

CARRIERS —-LIMITING LIABILITY—NEGLIGENCE— VALUATION OF SHIPMENT.

1. Since, in this state, public policy prevents a carrier from contracting against the results of his own negligence, the contract to ship goods "released" must be construed to mean that he is only relieved from losses occasioned without his negligence.

2. Where goods are shipped "released, " the burden is upon the carrier to show that the loss was within the exemption, and not occasioned by his negligence. Civ. Code 1895, § 2205.

3. Where there is a suit for a conversion, the wrongdoer cannot take advantage of an agreed valuation of the property in order to lessen the amount of his liability.

4. Where the carrier arbitrarily fixes the value of a particular consignment, or where, by the terms of the printed bill of lading, there is an arbitrary fixing of value before the goods are inspected, and without regard to their real worth, the same will be treated as a mere attempt to limit liability, and not a bona fide attempt to value the property shipped.

5. But where, by the act of the parties, there is a bona fide valuation, or where the contents of packages are unknown to the carrier, and the valuation is placed thereon by the shipper, who thereby gets a lower rate of freight, and the goods are lost or damaged, the shipper is estopped from recovering beyond the valuation thus fixed by him.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Action by Johnson, King & Co. against the Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

This case was tried on an agreed statement of facts, from which it appeared that the plaintiffs in the court below filled out duplicate shipping tickets, signed the same, and sent them, with shipments of candy, to the company's depot. The contents of the packages were unknown to the carrier, except as indicated by the tickets. One of the duplicate receipts signed by the plaintiffs was retained by the company, and the other, signed by its agent, was returned to the plaintiffs. The boxes contained candy, which, under the classification of freights in effect at the time, could be shipped either as first or fourth class; confectioneries— namely, candy, bonbons, and confectionery not otherwise specified—being shipped as first class at a high rate. Such shipments, "with value limited to six cents per pound, and so expressed in the bill of lading, " are shipped as fourth class, and at a considerably lower rate. On' the shipping tickets prepared by the plaintiff in the present case, and others used by the company, there was printed, "Candy released six c. per pound valuation; entire shipment released;" this stipulation being for the purpose of securing the rate of freight applicable to fourth-class shipment under the Southern classification. It was agreed that some of the goods had been damaged and others lost. The company conceded its liability on the basis of six cents per pound, and tendered the amount thus calculated to the plaintiffs, who declined to receive the same, insisting that they were entitled to the real value. The judge so found, and the carrier excepted.

John I. Hall, R. C. Jordan, and Geo. S. Jones, for plaintiff in error.

Lane & Park, for defendant in error.

LAMAR, J. The word "released, " as used in contracts of shipment, has, from usage, acquired a well-defined meaning, though as yet it does not seem to have been judicially construed. No doubt the effect given the term will vary in the different courts, according as the law of the state permits or prohibits contracts against the results of negligence. In this state, where public policy forbids such limitation, the word must be held to mean only that the shipper agrees to relieve from all liability as against which the law allows the carrier to exempt itself by contract. See Cooper v. Raleigh & Gaston R. Co., 110 Ga. 662, 30 S. E. 240; Hutchinson on Carriers, § 250. But even in such cases the presumption is against the carrier, and the burden is upon it to establish that the loss was within the exception, and not occasioned by its own negligence. Civ. Code 1895, § 2265. Here there was no explanation of the circumstances attending the loss, and, admitting its liability, the carriertendered to the plaintiffs the value of the goods as named in the shipping receipt. This was declined, and the suit was continued for the purpose of recovering the real value of the articles shipped.

In an action of trover or damages for conversion the tort feasor could not take advantage of his own wrong, nor...