Graves v. Adams Exp. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1900
• Citation: 57 N.E. 462,176 Mass. 280
• Parties: GRAVES v. ADAMS EXP. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

176 Mass. 280

57 N.E. 462

GRAVES v. ADAMS EXP. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 5, 1900

COUNSEL

Arthur H. Russell, for plaintiff.

L. S Dabney, for defendant.

OPINION

MORTON J.

It appeared at the trial, from the plaintiff's testimony that he had been in business for many years, and had been in the habit of sending, year in and year out, quite a large number of packages by express; that, when he delivered goods to defendant's messengers, they always gave the regular receipt for them; and that blank receipts were kept in his office, and when he got out of them the messenger was notified, and more would be left. He further testified that he had shipped goods on valuations and without valuations and that he was aware that when the value was more than $50 the charge for transportation was increased, and was also aware of the clause valuing the merchandise at $50 unless another value was expressed. He also testified that he gave his clerk instructions as to the shipping of the paintings, but did not say anything to her about the value, or give her any value; that he must have known when the messenger took the box away, although his memory was not clear; and that the receipt was brought to him late in the day by the clerk, and, noticing an error in the date, he corrected it by writing the true date over it, but found no other fault with it, and gave it back to the clerk to put on file. As tending still further to show his familiarity with the valuation clause in the receipt, it appeared from his testimony that he generally filled out the receipts in which a valuation was given, and on the same day on which the paintings were shipped he shipped several other packages, the receipts for which were filled out by him, and contained valuations. There was likewise testimony from him tending to show that when a valuation was put into the receipt he prepaid the freight, but that in this instance the freight was to be collected from the consignee. There was no claim that the receipt which the plaintiff got differed, as a blank, from the other blanks of the defendant company which the plaintiff was accustomed to use.

We think that upon these facts, which are undisputed, the plaintiff must be held to have assented to the limitation of the defendant's liability contained in the receipt. It is settled in this state, at least, that a common carrier may limit its liability in case...