Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Keener

• Decision Date: 16 July 1894
• Citation: 21 S.E. 287,93 Ga. 808
• Parties: GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. KEENER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

21 S.E. 287

93 Ga. 808

GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. KEENER.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 16, 1894

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where household goods were shipped by rail under a special contract in writing, expressed in the bill of lading whereby, in consideration of a reduced rate of freight, the liability of the railroad company, in case of loss, was limited to an arbitrary valuation of $5 per 100 pounds, and a portion of the goods were stolen after arrival at destination, but before the carrier's responsibility as such was terminated, there being no evidence showing how or under what circumstances the theft occurred, presumptively the loss was occasioned by the company's negligence, and this being so, it was liable for the full value of the goods so lost. The contract would exempt from the insurance liability imposed by law as to loss not occasioned by negligence.

2. The contract of shipment was not one limiting value by express agreement, but one in which there was no attempt to estimate value.

Error from superior court, Richmond county; H. C. Roney, Judge.

Action by William E. Keener, administrator, against the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Jos. B Cumming and Bryan Cumming, for plaintiff in error.

Hamilton Phinizy, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS J.

Prather shipped over the defendant's railroad a quantity of household goods and a trunk containing wearing apparel. The goods reached their destination, and while the car in which they were shipped was standing on a side track, waiting for the plaintiff to call for his property, the trunk was lost. The plaintiff sued the railroad company for the value of the property lost, which he alleged to be $55, and obtained a verdict for that amount. It appeared from the evidence at the trial that this was the actual value of the trunk and its contents; but the defendant claimed that under the contract of shipment it could not be held liable for more than $5 for each 100 pounds lost. The court charged the jury that, if the defendant was liable, they might look to the value of the goods that were lost as the amount which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover; and to this charge the defendant excepted.

It appears that at the time the goods were shipped the plaintiff went to the agent of the defendant and asked for rates telling him that he wanted to ship wearing apparel and household furniture, and the agent replied that the lowest rate he could make was 37 cents per 100 pounds, which was a released rate; that is, $5 per 100 pounds valuation." The plaintiff thereupon told the agent that he would ship that way, and took a shipping receipt on which were the words, "Released, $5 valuation," followed by the plaintiff's name. It was contended that this released the defendant from liability for more than the valuation stated. Where a shipper enters into an express contract with a common carrier by which he agrees, in consideration of a reduced rate of freight, that the carrier shall not be liable for more than a stated sum in case the goods shipped are lost while in the carrier's possession, the contract will be upheld as to loss not involving negligence on the part of the carrier; but carriers cannot by any special contract exempt themselves from liability for loss occasioned by their...