Greenwald v. Barrett

• Decision Date: 17 June 1910
• Citation: 199 N.Y. 170,92 N.E. 218
• Parties: GREENWALD et al. v. BARRETT.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

199 N.Y. 170

92 N.E. 218

GREENWALD et al.

v.BARRETT.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 17, 1910.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by Isaac Greenwald and others against William M. Barrett, as President of the Adams Express Company. From an order of the Appellate Division (130 App. Div. 696,115 N. Y. Supp. 311), reversing a determination of the Appellate Term, reversing a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York for plaintiffs for $50 damages and costs, plaintiffs appeal by permission. Affirmed.

See, also, 131 App. Div. 903,115 N. Y. Supp. 1123 and 131 App. Div. 568,116 N. Y. Supp. 172.

Samuel J. Rawak, for appellants.

William D. Guthrie, for respondent.

WILLARD BARTLETT, J.

This action was brought in the Municipal Court of the city of New York to recover $235, being the alleged value of merchandise received by the Adams Express Company from the plaintiffs for transportation from the city of New York to the city of Waukegan, Ill., but never delivered to the consignee. The defendant admitted the receipt of the property and the undertaking of the Adams Express Company to forward the same to the destination indicated and deliver it, but pleaded that the shipment was accepted under a special contract whereby it was provided that the package and its contents were of the value of not more than fifty dollars ($50), and that the charges for forwarding the same were fixed and regulated according to such valuation. It was further averred in the answer that it was by said contract expressly agreed that the Adams Express Company should in no event be liable for an amount greater than the valuation so placed upon the package and its contents, namely, $50; and that no statement of the value of the package was made to the express company or to any one in its employ at the time of the delivery and shipment thereof, although said value was asked by the agent of the company who received the same.

It will be perceived that there was practically no dispute as to the liability of the Adams Express Company in some amount for the nondelivery of the package; the plaintiffs contending that it was liable for the full value of the property shipped, while the defendant insisted that the agreed valuationof $50 was the utmost which the plaintiffs could lawfully claim,

The contract upon which the defendant relies was embodied in an express receipt signed by the agent of the Adams Express Company at the time he received the goods in its behalf. It was taken from a book of blank receipts which the plaintiffs had been in the habit of using at their place of business for about three months before this shipment. The entry on the receipt relating to this shipment was filled out by the plaintiffs' shipping clerk, and the receipt was then offered with the package to the driver of the express company who signed and left it with the plaintiffs and took the package away. Inasmuch as the package was never delivered to the consignee, it was clear that the express company was bound to make good its loss to the plaintiffs. Its claim that the amount of this loss was only $50 is based upon the following paragraph which appears upon the printed portion of the receipt: ‘In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is regulated by the value thereof and is based upon a valuation of not exceeding fifty dollars unless a greater value is declared, the shipper agrees that the value of said property is not more than fifty dollars, unless a greater value is stated herein, and that the company shall not be liable in any event for more than the value so stated, nor for more than fifty dollars if no value is stated herein.’

To defeat the limitation of liability sought to be effected by this clause in the express receipt, the plaintiffs rely upon a provision contained in the act of Congress commonly known as the Hepburn act, being an amendment to section 20 of the interstate commerce act, passed June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 594 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1166). That amendment reads as follows: ‘That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefore and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed: Provided, That nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law.’

The question to be determined upon this appeal is whether this federal legislation forbids an express company fom making a contract with a shipper such as we have quoted from the receipt given to the plaintiffs. If that question is answered in the affirmative, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover whatever they could prove to have been the actual value of the property shipped. If it is answered in the negative, their recovery must be limited to the agreed value of the property under the terms of the receipt. The purpose of the provision which we have quoted from the Hepburn act was obvious....