Hill v. Georgia, C. & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 April 1895
• Citation: 21 S.E. 337,43 S.C. 461
• Parties: HILL v. GEORGIA, C. & N. R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

21 S.E. 337

43 S.C. 461

HILL v. GEORGIA, C. & N. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 2, 1895

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Abbeville county; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by R. M. Hill against the Georgia, Carolina & Northern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The charge of the trial court was as follows:

"This is a suit on the part of R. M. Hill, plaintiff, to recover from the defendant railroad company damages for the failure on the part of the railroad company to deliver to the consignees a certain lot of cotton delivered to the railroad company by Mr. Hill to be shipped to Charleston, and there deliver to his factors, James M. Seignous & Son. It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that the railroad did not carry out their part of the contract, and on account of that failure certain damages resulted. It is alleged that a bill of lading was given for the cotton; that is, a receipt and a contract setting forth the conditions on which the railroad promised to do, and I will read a portion of it to you: 'And it is further stipulated and agreed that in case of any loss or damage done to or sustained by any cotton herein receipted for, during transportation, whereby any legal liability may be incurred by the terms of this contract, that the company alone shall be held responsible therefor in whose actual custody the cotton may be at the time of the happening of such loss or damage.' I charge you, as a matter of law, that under that contract it was incumbent upon the defendant company to deliver at Charleston to James M. Seignous & Son this cotton in a reasonable time in as good condition as it was at the time that they received it; and if the cotton was not in that condition at the time that it was delivered, or ought to have been delivered, then there was a failure on the part of the railroad company, and it is liable. Now, the next question is, was the cotton delivered in a reasonable time? If you find that it was not delivered at a reasonable time, at the time that it was delivered then in what condition was it then? If it was not in as good condition as when the railroad company received it, then to what extent was it damaged? And, if you so find that, the measure of the damages shall be as follows: If you find that the cotton was not delivered to the consignees in a reasonable time, and that in consequence the cotton has been damaged, then I charge you that the measure of damages cannot exceed the value of the cotton at the time that delivery should have been made, with interest to the time of delivery less the value of the cotton at the time of delivery.

Now, I have been requested to charge you in behalf of the defense as follows: (2) 'That in this state a common carrier may or may not take goods to be delivered beyond its own line. If it does so, it may limit liability.' Court I so charge you. You demand a railroad company to deliver cotton at any point not on its line of road, but they have no right to refuse to take goods to deliver on its line of road. In other words, if the city of Charleston is not on its line of road, the plaintiff cannot force them to deliver it there, but they can take a contract to deliver in Charleston, and they would be bound by it.

(4) 'That the bill of lading is the contract between the parties, if accepted without objection by shipper, and it controls as to the liability of the C. C.' Court: That I charge you to be the law that the bill of lading introduced in evidence is the contract of the parties. (6) 'That it was the duty of the terminal company to deliver the goods upon the presentation of the bill of lading to the consignee named in the bill, unless it appears that the shipper has assigned the bill to another party (subject to the right of stopping in transitu in cases of insolvency).' Court: I charge you that that is the law. That was the duty of the railroad company to deliver the cotton to the consignees. But, if Mr. Hill had changed the consignees, it was the duty of the railroad company to deliver to the party named in the bill of lading. (7) 'That the carrier is under no obligation to deliver the goods except upon the presentation of the bill of lading by the consignees named therein.' Court: That I charge you as the law. (8) 'That, if the bill of lading and waybill differ in terms, the bill of lading must control.' Court: I charge you that to be the law.

"Now, with reference to the liability of connecting roads. That does not apply in a case of this kind. For instance, if it was the desire on the part of the plaintiff to ship that cotton, he would have a right to ship it to any point on defendant's line. He could require defendant to deliver it to any connecting line, and, when this road took the receipt of any connecting line, that would relieve this road of responsibility then for loss. But in this case it is not so, for the reason that this road has contracted to deliver this cotton in the city of Charleston, and it cannot relieve itself from the obligation by saying that some other road has not performed its contract. It is obligatory on this road to deliver that cotton at Charleston to the consignee in as good order as it was received here. Now, you are here to hold the scales of justice. You are simply to find the facts from the evidence as you have heard it here, and apply those facts to the law, which I have endeavored to give you."

L. W. Perrin and T. P. Cothran, for appellant.

Graydon & Graydon, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages to a lot of cotton shipped by him, over the railroad of defendant company, under a contract to deliver the same to Seignous & Son, at Charleston, as he alleged, a considerable portion of which was not delivered to said Seignous & Son until after a considerable lapse of time, whereby the cotton was greatly damaged by exposure to the weather. There are certain undisputed facts in the case, which may be stated substantially as follows: On the 17th of October, 1891, the cotton was received at Abbeville for shipment, and consigned to Seignous & Son under a contract evidenced by a bill of lading, a copy of which is set out in the case, the terms of which will be hereinafter more particularly referred to. Inasmuch as defendant's line of railroad does not extend to Charleston, the arrangement seems to have been that the cotton should be transported to Clinton over defendant's road, where the same connected with the Columbia, Newberry & Laurens Railroad, and thence transported by that road to Columbia, where the last-named road connected with the South Carolina Railway, and from thence carried by said railway to Charleston. By that route the cotton was carried to Charleston, reaching there on or about the 20th of October, 1891, in good condition. The South Carolina Railway Company refused to deliver the cotton when called for by the consignees, Seignous & Son, on account of some discrepancy between the waybill and the bill of lading. This discrepancy having been explained by the defendant company as soon as it was brought to the attention of that company, to wit, on the 5th of December, 1891, the South Carolina Railway Company tendered the cotton to the consignees a few days thereafter, who refused to receive the same unless the South Carolina Railway Company would pledge itself that all losses arising from the delay in delivering the cotton should be paid. This said railway company refused to do, and the consignees declined to receive the cotton. Finally, the consignees, on the 19th of August, 1892, accepted the cotton "under protest." In the meantime the cotton remained in the custody of the South Carolina Railway Company; and was suffered to lie in its yard, exposed to the weather; and, of course, when it was delivered to the consignees, it was very considerably damaged by such exposure.

In its answer, the defendant sets up several defenses: First. A general denial of all the allegations in the complaint except such as were subsequently admitted or modified. Second. That the cotton was delivered to it under a special contract, evidenced by a bill of lading, filed as an exhibit to the answer, the terms of which will hereinafter be more particularly stated. Third. That the South Carolina Railway Company was not the agent of defendant, in no way under its control or accountable to it for its action in the premises, except to account for defendant's share of the through freight. On the contrary, the said railway company was simply one of the connecting lines over the route by which the cotton was to be transported. Fourth. That the cotton was delivered promptly to the Columbia, Newberry & Laurens Railroad Company, at Clinton, the next connecting line over the route by which the cotton was to be transported to Charleston, and whatever damage was done to the cotton was done after the defendant company had delivered the same to the next connecting line, and was due to the negligence of the consignees in not presenting promptly the bill of lading which had been forwarded to them, by the plaintiff, as well as to the negligence or fault of the South Carolina Railway Company in not promptly delivering the cotton to the consignees, and, on the contrary, permitting the cotton to remain in its yard for a length of time, exposed to the weather. Fifth. That said Seignous & Son having accepted and paid drafts to an amount equal to or exceeding the value of the cotton, drawn on them by the plaintiff, with the understanding that the proceeds of the sale of the cotton should be applied to the payment of such drafts, the said Seignous & Son thereby became the owners of the cotton, and, as such, they, and not the plaintiff, were the proper parties to...