Hoffman v. Cumberland Val. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1897
• Citation: 37 A. 214,85 Md. 391
• Parties: HOFFMAN ET AL. v. CUMBERLAND VAL. R. CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

37 A. 214

85 Md. 391

HOFFMAN ET AL. v. CUMBERLAND VAL. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 31, 1897

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county. Action by Edward Hoffman and another, partners as Hoffman & Thomas, against the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, FOWLER, BRISCOE, and BOYD JJ.

Alex. Armstrong, J. A. Mason, Ernest Hoffman, M. L. Keedy, W. H. A Hamilton, and Buchanan Schley, for appellants.

Geo. W Smith, Jr., and J. Clarence Lane, for appellee.

BRISCOE J.

This is an action brought in the circuit court for Washington county by the appellants, Hoffman & Thomas, against the appellee, the Cumberland Valley Railroad Company, to recover damages caused by delay in the transportation of seven car loads of peaches shipped at Hagerstown, Md., in September, 1895, and directed to the consignees in New York. The line of the defendant's road ends at Harrisburg, in the state of Pennsylvania, and at that place, in the usual course of business, freight for New York is delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a connecting carrier. The delay complained of in this case occurred on the road of the connecting carrier, and the question is whether, under the facts as disclosed by the record before us, the defendant is liable for such delay. The law in regard to the liability of an initial carrier of goods for losses or delays occurring on the line of a connecting carrier, to which it has safely delivered the goods in the course of transportation, has been settled in this state by the cases of Railroad Co. v. Green, 25 Md. 72, and Railroad Co. v. Schumacher, 29 Md. 168. It is that the first carrier is only liable to the extent of its own route, and for safe delivery to the next carrier, in the absence of an express and special contract increasing the liability, and causing it to cover losses that may happen upon the lines of connecting carriers. And in Elliott on Railroads (page 2227) it is said: "The majority of our courts have held, in accordance with what is called the 'American rule,' that the mere acceptance of goods directed to a point off the carrier's line is not a sufficient basis for the implication of a contract for extraterminal liability, and that in the absence of an express contract, or some significant facts or specifications other than the fact of acceptance, as the basis of an implied contract, the initial carrier is discharged by carrying safely to the end of its line, and there delivering to the next carrier."

In the case now under consideration the plaintiffs rely upon a special agreement by the defendant to deliver the goods shipped in New York or Jersey City at a specified time, over the route of a connecting carrier. The proof on the subject is as follows: One of the plaintiffs testified that he had been shipping peaches from Hagerstown, by refrigerator cars when Long, the local station agent of the defendant, said to him that "it was not worth while to ship by refrigerator cars. Why not try ventilated cars? They would get there [[New York] the same as by express hooked onto passenger trains; rate to be 63 cents shipped by fast freight, and they would get to New York about seven o'clock in the morning." The other plaintiff testified that Long said, "If I shipped by fast freight, I was always sure of the peaches getting there on time." The only other evidence offered by the plaintiffs as to the alleged agreement was the testimony of the witness Boss, who said that, shortly before the shipments were made, Long, the agent, had said, "We made a contract with Mr. Hoffman for fast freight, and by passenger service from Harrisburg to New York,...