Hutchinson v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 December 1887
• Citation: 37 Minn. 524,35 N.W. 433
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: HUTCHINSON v CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

37 Minn. 524

35 N.W. 433

HUTCHINSONvCHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

December 13, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Evidence held insufficient to justify a finding that a contract signed by a party was signed under such circumstances that he was not bound by it.

Doctrine that a common carrier may by contract restrict his liability applied.

Held, that if the evidence in this case shows any negligence in the loss of property carried, a horse which jumped from the railroad car, and was killed, it shows negligence on the part of the owner who put the horse in the car and opened and left open the window through which he jumped, as much as it showed negligence on the part of the carrier.

Appeal from district court, Blue Earth county; SEVERANCE, Judge.

John D. Howe and Lorin Cray, for Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., appellant.

Collester & Foster, for Hutchinson, respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

We see no objection to the admissibility in evidence of the contract. It expressed the terms on which the defendant received plaintiff's horse for transport to St. Paul. The omission of the rate to be charged is as to this point unimportant; for whether a rate was expressly agreed on, or the defendant was to receive whatever the service might be worth, or it was to do the carrying gratuitously, still it might by agreement restrict its liability, (except as to losses caused by its negligence,) and the delivery and acceptance of the animal for carriage was a sufficient mutual consideration to sustain the argument as to the extent of the defendant's liability.

There was no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that plaintiff signed the contract under such circumstances that he was not bound by it. After putting his horse in the car, he asked defendant's agent for a receipt, and the latter laid before him the contract in duplicate, saying they were duplicates, and asked him to sign them, which he did without reading them, as he says, but he states no reason for not reading them, and none is apparent. To allow a man to avoid a written contract signed by him, upon such evidence as this, would establish a rule to effectually do away with a great many contracts.

The contract agreed that the defendant should not be liable for loss “by jumping from the cars.” Of course, this exception would not cover a case where the jumping from the cars was due to defendant's negligence; and, of course, even in that case, the plaintiff could...