Hart v. Pennsylvania Co

Citation5 S.Ct. 151,112 U.S. 331,28 L.Ed. 717
Decision Date24 November 1884
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Melville C. Day and G. M. Stewart, for plaintiff in error.

E. W. Pattison and Newton Crane, for defendant in error.

Lawrence Hart brought this suit in a state court in Missouri against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, to recover damages from it, as a common carrier, for the breach of a contract to transport, from Jersey City to St. Louis, five horses and other property. The petition alleges that, by the negligence of the defendant, one of the horses was killed and the others were injured, and the other property was destroyed, and claims damages to the amount of $19,800. After an answer and a reply, the plaintiff removed the suit into the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Missouri, where it was tried by a jury, who found a verdict of $1,200 for the plaintiff; and, after a judgment accordingly, the plaintiff has brought this writ of error. The property was transported under a bill of lading issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, and signed by him, and reading as follows:


'Form No. 39, N. J.

'Limited Liability Live-Stock Contract for United Railroads of New Jersey Division. (No. 206.)

'JERSEY CITY STATION, P. R. R., ___, 187 _.

'Lawrence Hart delivered into safe and suitable cars of the Pennsylvan a Railroad Company, numbered M. L. 224, for transportation from Jersey City to St. Louis, Mo., live-stock, of the kind, as follows: one (1) car, five horses, shipper's count; which has been received by said company, for themselves and on behalf of connecting carriers, for transportation, upon the following terms and conditions, which are admitted and accepted by me as just and reasonable:

'First. To pay the freight thereon to said company at the rate of ninety-four (94) cents per one hundred pounds, (company's weight,) and all back freight and charges paid by them, on the condition that the carrier assumes a liability on the stock to the extent of the following agreed valuation: If horses or mules, not exceeding two hundred dollars each; if cattle or cows, not exceeding seventy-five dollars each; if fat hogs or fat calves, not exceeding fifteen dollars each; if sheep, lambs, stock hogs, or stock calves, not exceeding five dollars each; if a chartered car, on the stock and contents in same, twelve hundred dollars for the car-load. But no carrier shall be liable for the acts of the animals themselves, or to each other, such as biting, kicking, goring, and smothering, nor for loss or damage arising from con- dition of the animals themselves, which risks, being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed by the owner, and the carrier released therefrom.

'Second. Upon the arrival of the cars or boats containing said stock at point of destination, the shipper, owner, or consignee shall forthwith pay said freights and charges, and receive said stock therein, and unload the same therefrom; and if, from any cause, he or they shall fail or refuse to pay, receive, or unload, as aforesaid, then said company or other carrier, as the agent of such shipper, owner, or consignee, may thereupon have them put and provided for in some suitable place, at the cost and risk of such shipper, owner, or consignee, and at any time or times thereafter may sell the same, or any number of them, at public or private sale, with or without notice, as said agent may deem necessary or expedient, and apply the proceeds arising therefrom, or so much thereof as may be needed, to the payment of such freight and charges, and other necessary and proper costs and expenses.

'Third. When necessary for said stock to be transported over the line or lines of any other carrier or carriers to the point of destination, delivery of the said stock may be made to such other carrier or carriers for transportation, upon such terms and conditions as the carrier may be willing to accept: provided, that the terms and conditions of this bill of lading shall inure to such carrier or carriers, unless they shall otherwise stipulate; but in no event shall one carrier be liable for the negligence of another.

'Fourth. All live-stock transported under this contract shall be subject to a lien, and may be retained and sold for all freight or charges due for transportation on other live-stock or property transported for the same owner, shipper, or consignee.

'Fifth. This company's liability is limited to the transportation of said animals, and shall not begin until they shall be loaded on board the boats or cars of the company. The owner of said animals, or some person appointed by him, shall go with, and take all requisite care of, the said animals during their transportation and delivery, and any omission to comply herewith SHALL BE AT THE OWNER'S RISK. WITNESS My hand and seal, this twentieth daY of October, 1879.

LAWRENCE HART, Shipper. [L. S.]



'W. J. CHARMERS, Company's Agent.'

At the trial the plaintiff put in evidence the bill of lading, and gave testimony to prove the alleged negligence, and how the loss and injury occurred. He then offered to show that the actual value of the horse killed was $15,000; that the other horses were worth from $3,000 to $3,500 each; and that they were rendered comparatively worthless in consequence of their injuries. The defendant objected to this testimony, on the ground that it was not competent for the plaintiff to prove any damage or loss in excess of that set out in the bill of lading. The court sustained the objection and the plaintiff excepted. It appeared on the trial that the horses were race-horses, and that they and the other property were all in one car. It was admitted by the defendant that the damages sustained by the plaintiff were equal to the full amount expressed in the bill of lading. The court charged the jury as follows: 'It is competent for a shipper, by entering into a written contract, to stipulate the value of his property, and to limit the amount of his recovery in case it is lost. This is the plain agreement that the recovery shall not exceed the sum of two hundred dollars each for the horses, or twelve hundred dollars for a car-load. It is admitted here by counsel for the defendant, under this charge, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a verdict for twelve hundred dollars, and also, under the charge of the court, the plaintiff agrees that that is all. It is simply your duty to find a verdict for that amount.' The plaintiff excepted to this charge. The errors assigned are that the court erred in refusing to permit the plaintiff to show the actual damages he had sus- tained, and in so charging the jury as to restrict their verdict to $1,200.

[Argument of Counsel from page 335 intentionally omitted]


It is contended for the plaintiff that the bill of lading does not purport to limit the liability of the defendant to the amounts stated in it, in the event of loss through the negligence of the defendant. But we are of opinion that the contract is not susceptible of that construction. The defendant receives the property for transportation on the terms and conditions expressed, which the plaintiff accepts 'as just and reasonable.' The first paragraph of the contract is that the plaintiff is to pay the rate of freight expressed, 'on the condition that the carrier assumes a liability on the stock to the extent of the following agreed valuation: If horses or mules, not exceeding two hundred dollars each; * * * if a chartered car, on the stock and contents in same, twelve hundred dollars for the car-load.' Then follow, in the first paragraph, these words: 'But no carrier shall be liable for the acts of the animals themselves, or to each other, such as biting, kicking, goring, or smothering, nor for loss or damage arising from condition of the animals themselves, which risks, being beyond the control of the company, are hereby assumed by the owner, and the carrier released therefrom.' This statement of the fact that the risks from the acts and condition of the horses are risks beyond the control of the defendant, and are therefore assumed by the plaintiff, shows, if more were needed than the other language of the contract, that the risks and liability assumed by the defendant in the remainder of the same paragraph are those not beyond but within the control of the defendant, and therefore apply to loss through the negligence of the defendant. It must be presumed from the terms of the bill of lading, and without any evidence on the subject, and especially in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that, as the rate of freight expressed is stated to be on the condition that the defendant assumes a liability to the extent of the agreed valuation named, the rate of freight is graduated by the valuation. Especially is this so, as the bill of lading is what its heading states it to be, 'a limited liability live-stock contract,' and is confined to live-stock. Although the horses, being race-horses, may, aside from the bill of lading, have been of greater real value than that specified in it, whatever passed between the parties before the bill of lading was signed, was merged in the valuation it fixed; and it is not asserted that the plaintiff named any value, greater or less, otherwise than as he assented to the value named in the bill of lading, by signing it. The presumption is conclusive that if the liability had been assumed on a valuation as great as that now alleged, a higher rate of freight would have been charged. The rate of freight is indissolubly bound up with the valuation. If the rate of freight named was the only one offered by the defendant, it was because it was a rate measured by the valuation expressed. If the valuation was fixed at that expressed, when the real value was larger, it was because the rate of freight named was measured by the low valuation. The plaintiff cannot claim a higher valuation on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
515 cases
  • Homer v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 5 Diciembre 1912
    ... ... 151; 13 I. C. C. Rep. 550; Railroad Co. v. Fraloff, ... 100 U.S. 24; The Kensington, 183 U.S. 263; Hart v. Pa. R ... Co., 112 U.S. 331; Southern Ry. v. Jones, 31 ... So. 501; Railway Co. v. Weakley, 50 Ark. 397; ... Donolon v. S. P. Co., 91 ... to discharge a duty imposed upon it by the common law--and ... hence her case falls within the doctrine announced in ... Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Hughes , 191 U.S. 477 at 488, ... 24 S.Ct. 132, 48 L.Ed. 268; Hooker v. Boston & M. R. Co., ... supra ; and Wells v. Great Northern ... ...
  • J. M Pace Mule Co v. Seabd. Air Line Ry. Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 20 Noviembre 1912
    ...with the authorities in this state and elsewhere, and they are now overruled. We are not inadvertent to the case of Hart v. Railroad, 112 U. S. 331, 5 Sup. Ct 151, 28 L. Ed. 717, declaring a different rule as to valuation clauses in bills of lading, which has been followed in some states, a......
  • Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Blind
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1914
    ...Co. v. Hooker (1913) 233 U. S. 97, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, 58 L. Ed. -; Kansas City, etc., Co. v. Carl, supra; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 Sup. Ct. 151, 28 L. Ed. 717. The answers to which demurrers were sustained were good, and the court erred in sustaining them, unless the fact......
  • Erisman v. Chi., B. & Q. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 26 Junio 1917
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT