Hazel v. Chi., M. & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1891
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Parties: HAZEL ET UX. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.

82 Iowa 477

48 N.W. 926

HAZEL ET UX.

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 20, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Woodbury county; GEORGE W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.

This is an action at law to recover the value of certain household goods, which it is claimed the plaintiffs shipped over the defendant's railroad from White Lake, in Dakota, to Sioux City, in this state. It is averred in the petition that the defendant failed to deliver said goods to the plaintiffs at Sioux City, and that they were lost. The defendant denied the allegations of the petition, and claimed that the property was delivered to the plaintiffs at Sioux City, and that the plaintiffs entered into a written contract with the defendant, through its agent at White Lake, by which, in consideration of reduced freight charges, the plaintiffs agreed that in case of loss or damage while the goods were in possession of the defendant the amount to be paid by the defendant should not exceed five dollars per hundred pounds. There was a trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of $304. Defendant appeals.O. J. Taylor, for appellant.

Roberts & Roberts, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

The goods were shipped in the name of Mrs. G. Hazel or Mrs. George Hazel. There is a conflict in the evidence as to whether the box in question was delivered to the plaintiffs at Sioux City, and whether the plaintiff George Hazel, who personally attended to the shipment, signed the name “Mrs. G. Hazel” to the alleged contract limiting the liability of the defendant as carrier of the goods. These disputed facts demand no further consideration than to say that they were for the jury to determine, and we find no reason for disturbing the verdict, so far as these questions are involved.

The only real question in the case arises upon the construction of the legal effect of the alleged contract limiting the liability of the defendant as a common carrier. It is not disputed that the box of goods in question was transported from White Lake to Sioux City, and that, if it was lost, the loss occurred after the property was brought into this state; and no question is made as to whether the defendant is liable as a common carrier or as the keeper of a warehouse. The learned district judge was of the opinion that, while the contract limiting the liability might be valid in Dakota, yet, as the contract of shipment was to be partly performed in this state, the contract limiting liability is contrary to section 1308 of the Code, which in effect declares such contracts to be void, and that the courts of this state will not give extraterritorial effect to such an act of a sister state. The offer to introduce said contract in evidence was overruled, and it was ignored in the instructions to the jury. It was held in McDaniel v. Railway Co., 24 Iowa, 412, that where a railway company undertook to transport a certain lot of cattle from Clinton, in this state, and deliver them in Chicago, the contract, being entire and partly to be performed in this state, must be governed by our law as to its validity and interpretation, and that a restriction as to liability by the company, although valid under the law of Illinois, was invalid in this state, and the carrier was liable the same as if no such stipulation had been inserted therein. In Talbott v. Transportation Co., 41 Iowa, 247, a contract for the transportation of certain goods from Hartford, Conn., to Des Moines, in this state, contained exemptions from liability for loss by fire. The goods were destroyed by fire while in transit at Chicago, Ill. It was held that, as the exceptions were valid in the state where the contract was made, and valid in the state of Illinois, where the loss occurred, the contract was valid, and there could be no recovery for the loss. The question as to the validity of the contract if the loss had occurred in this state was not...