Hill v. Northern P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1904
• Citation: 33 Wash. 697,74 P. 1054
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HILL v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.

74 P. 1054

33 Wash. 697

HILL v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 2, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; John C. Denney, Judge.

Action by J. Clyde Hill against the Northern Pacific Railway Company. From the judgment rendered, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. D. Tirrill and Cooley & Horan, for appellant.

B. S. Grosscup and A. G. Avery, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

This is an action at law for the recovery of $278.55, the alleged true value of certain household goods shipped from Tacoma, Wash., to Everett, Wash., over respondent's railroad, and which were lost in transit. The complaint is the ordinary complaint in such actions, alleging the value of the goods lost to be $278.55. The answer admits the shipment of the goods, but pleads that they were shipped under a certain contract, in which the agreed value of the goods was $5 per hundred pounds. The contract upon which the defense is based is as follows:

Northern Pacific Railway Company.

Property Release.

Tacoma 2/7 1902.

Consigner and Destination.

Description of Articles.

J. C. Hill

Everett Wash.

H. H. Goods

Released Value of this shipment is agreed to be 5.00 per 100 lbs.

In consideration of the Northern Pacific Railway Company having received the above property from R. C. Bulger consigned to J. C. Hill, to be transported from Tacoma Station to Everett Station, I hereby Release Said Company and each and every other Railroad over whose Lines said Goods may pass to destination, from any and all Damage that may occur to said Goods arising from leakage or decay, chafing or breakage, damage by fire while in transit or at Stations loss of damage from effect of heat or cold, or from any other cause not the result of collisions of trains, or of cars being thrown from the track while in transit. And I further guarantee to said Company or other Railroad Companies, that any and all freight or other necessary charges that may accrue as provided by tariffs of said Road or Roads, shall be paid by consignee within twenty-four hours after arrival of said Goods at destination, and in case such charges are not so paid, the said Company or Company holding said Goods may send them to warehouse, or sell them for charges, without further recourse to me.

I do also release said Company from all loss or damage that may occur to any freight shipped by me, above entered, after it has been unloaded from the cars at _____ Station on thier line.

Witness, W. G. Bassett.

R. C. Bulger, Shipper.

Respondent ascertained the number of pounds shipped, and tendered $19.25, the sum which it alleged to be due under such contract. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict against the defendant for $19.25, upon which judgment was entered, and from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

The appellant contends that the contract is void for the reasons (1) That it is contrary to public policy; and (2) that it is without consideration. It is well established, we think, by judicial decision, that a common carrier cannot relieve itself by contract from its common-law liability from damages to or loss of goods consigned to it. But it does not seem to us that that question is involved in this case. It is simply the question of whether the carrier and the shipper have a right to stipulate or agree in advance of the shipment concerning the value of the goods shipped, and it seems to us that this question was squarely decided in Hart v Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U.S. 331, 5 S.Ct. 151, 28 L.Ed. 717, where it is held that where a contract of carriage signed by the shipper is fairly made with a railroad company, agreeing on a valuation of the property carried, with the rate of freight based on the condition that the carrier assumes liability only to the extent of the agreed valuation, even in case of loss or damage by the negligence of the carrier the contract will be upheld as a proper and lawful mode of securing a due proportion between the amount for which the carrier may be responsible and the freight he receives, and of protecting himself against extravagant and fanciful valuations. There the contract was entitled, 'Limited Liability Live-Stock Contract for United Railroads of New Jersey Division, No. 206,' and it was agreed that the shipper had delivered to the company, into safe and suitable cars, one car, five horses, upon the following terms and conditions: First the shipper was to pay freight thereon to said company at the rate of 94 cents per 100 pounds, and the carrier assumed liability as follows: If horses or mules, nor exceeding $200 each (with some other provisions, which are not pertinent). One of the horses was killed, and it developed that they were race horses; and suit was brought against the company for the recovery of the alleged value of the horse at $15,000, together with damages for $3,000 for the injury to another horse, and $3,500 for the injury to still another. 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, and the court instructed the jury that the amount recovered could not exceed the value expressed in the bill of lading. This case was appealed, and finally reached the Supreme Court...