J.H. Hamlen & Sons Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1914
• Docket Number: 5691.
• Citation: 212 F. 324
• Parties: J. H. HAMLEN & SONS CO. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

212 F. 324

J. H. HAMLEN & SONS CO. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.

No. 5691.

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

April 14, 1914

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Rose Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.

Thos S. Buzbee, of Little Rock, Ark., for defendant.

TRIEBER District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

As the defendant had never published or filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a through rate to Buenos Aires, it was neither required nor could it make a through rate without violating the Interstate Commerce Law. Southern Railroad Co. v. Reid, 222 U.S. 424, 441, 32 Sup.Ct. 140, 56 L.Ed. 257. The bills of lading expressly provide that the carrier issuing the same only issued them on its own behalf over its own lines, and as agent for the connecting lines, without a joint, but several, liability, and as the Carmack amendment applies only to transportation between the states, and not to foreign countries, the defendant is clearly not liable under the bill of lading, even if it had been the initial carrier which had issued the bill of lading, which it was not, except for the car from Pennsylvania.

Is it liable on the contract made before the freight was delivered and the bills of lading issued? Ordinarily the written contract is held to merge all negotiations previously had, but the plaintiff claims that it is entitled to recover on the agreement and guaranty of the defendant, as without it the shipments would not have been made over its lines.

There are two reasons why this contention is untenable:

First. A railroad company has no power, unless expressly, or by necessary implication, authorized by its charter, to guarantee the performance of duties by another carrier, and there is no evidence that the defendant is so authorized. It is true that a carrier may, at common law, lawfully enter into a contract for the carriage of freight over connecting lines by issuing a bill of lading whereby it undertakes absolutely to carry and deliver a shipment to a destination on another line, but there was no such contract here. All that can be claimed is that it is liable on its guaranty to secure the rate of $9.60 per long ton from New Orleans to Buenos Aires. But it had no right to make such a guaranty. That it arranged for the transportation at that rate is admitted, and that is the most it could lawfully agree to do.

The cases relied on by counsel for the plaintiff (Northern Pacific R.R. Co. v. American Trading Co., 195 U.S. 439, 25 Sup.Ct. 84, 49 L.Ed. 269, and Southern Pacific Co. v. Interstate Commerce Com., 200 U.S. 536, 26 Sup.Ct. 330, 50 L.Ed. 585), may be distinguished on the facts, but that is unnecessary, as both of these cases arose and were determined by the court prior to the enactment of Hepburn Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 586. Section 2 of that act amends section 6 of the former act so as to read as follows:

'That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the Commission created by this act and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation between different points on its own route and between points on its own route and points on the route of any other carrier by railroad, by pipe line, or by water when a through route and joint rate have been established. If no joint rate over the through route has been established, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print and keep open to public inspection as aforesaid, the separately established rates, fares

...