James S. Davis Clothing Co. v. Merchants' Dispatch Transportation Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1904 |
| Citation | 81 S.W. 226,106 Mo.App. 487 |
| Parties | JAMES S. DAVIS CLOTHING COMPANY, Respondent, v. MERCHANTS' DISPATCH TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.--Hon. Henry Ramey, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Mosman & Ryan for appellant.
(1) The contract of shipment in the case at bar having been made in the State of New York, the Missouri statute, R. S. 1899, sec 5222, rendering the initial carrier liable, can not be invoked as a rule by which to construe and determine its provisions. Eckles v. Railway, 72 Mo.App. 305; Otis Co. v. Railway, 112 Mo. 628; Crouch v Railway, 42 Mo.App. 250. (2) Crouch v. Railway, 42 Mo.App. 248; Minter Bros. v. Railway, 56 Mo.App. 288; Railroad v. Manufacturing Co., 16 Wall. 318; Babcock v. Railway, 49 N.Y. 491; Railway v. Forsythe, 61 Pa. 81; Brintal v. Railway, 32 Verm. 665; Grain Elevator v. Railway, 138 Mo. 666. (3) Does the bill of lading show that the Merchants Dispatch Transportation Company undertook and agreed to carry the goods through to destination? In determining this question and interpreting this contract the court will adopt the rules applicable to the interpretation of ordinary contracts. There is no special rule applicable to bills of lading only. Leonard v. Railway, 54 Mo.App. 301; Jewelry Co. v. Bertig, 81 Mo.App. 399; Ellis v. Harrison, 104 Mo. 279; County v. Wood, 84 Mo. 509; Missouri Co. v. Bry, 88 Mo.App. 138; Railroad v. Irvine, 73 S.W. 540; Ferry Co. v. Railway, 128 Mo. 248; Moore v. Henry, 18 Mo.App. 35; Commission Co. v. Railway, 64 Mo.App. 146; Minter v. Railway, 56 Mo.App. 282. (4) The evidence shows conclusively not only that the Merchants Dispatch company only contracted to carry to "East Mississippi River" but also that that was the terminus of its route. Under such circumstances its whole duty was performed by delivering the goods to a connecting carrier for transportation and delivery by it to the Missouri Pacific, and by delivering to a connecting carrier at East St. Louis, Illinois, for further transportation, defendant performed its full duty. Railroad v. Earnest, 77 S.W. 29; Orr v. Railway, 21 Mo.App. 337; Elevator v. Railway, 138 Mo. 666; Coates v. Railway, 45 Mo. 241; Hutchison on Carriers Ed. 1880, sec. 154; Pratt v. Railway, 95 U.S. 43; Patterson v. Railway, 56 Mo. 659; Eckles v. Railway, 72 Mo.App. 305. (5) Where goods are delivered for shipment to a point beyond the carrier's line, with no directions or routing by the shipper, the law imparts a contract that the carrier may select any custom and any usual route. Snow v. Railway, 109 Ind.; Railroad v. Irvine, 73 S.W. 540; Glover v. Railroad, 95 Mo.App. l. c. 369-373; Rawson v. Holland, 59 N.Y. 611; Transfer Co. v. Neiswanger, 18 Mo.App. 103; Armstrong v. Railway, 62 Mo.App. 643.
Culver, Phillip & Spencer for respondent.
(1) The bill of lading does not provide that the defendant was to carry the goods to East St. Louis and there deliver to a connecting carrier. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company's line terminated at St. Louis. St. Louis was also on the line of defendant. Under its contract defendant was obliged to deliver the goods to St. Joseph, Missouri,--a point on its line--or to deliver them to the Missouri Pacific at a point common to both lines. Lesinsky v. Dispatch, 10 Mo.App. 139; Harmon v. Iden, 88 Mo.App. 314; Jaco v. Railroad, 94 Mo.App. 567; Commission Co. v. Railway, 64 Mo.App. 144; Johnson v. Railway, 33 N.Y. 610; Robinson v. Trans. Co., 45 Iowa 470; Isaacson v. Railway, 94 N.Y. 478; Railroad v. Beck, 125 Pa. St. 620, 17 At. Rep. 505; Congar v. Railway, 17 Wis. 492; Railroad v. Cole, 68 Ga. 623; Railroad v. Young, 25 Neb. 651; Hooper v. Railway, 27 Wis. 81; 6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 605; Railway v. Thomas, 89 Ala. 294; Coal Co. v. Railway, 10 Mo.App. 597; Block v. Transportation Co., 6 S.W. 881.
The plaintiff is a mercantile company doing a retail business at St. Joseph, Missouri, a city located on the western border of the State. Defendant is a carrier of freight, its chief business being the transportation of mercantile property from points in the eastern states to a large number of points in the west, including St. Joseph. While it owned cars, it did not own a line of railway; its shipments being over lines of railway going to, or else connecting with other roads going to the point of destination of the particular shipment. In June, 1901, plaintiff bought of a wholesale house in New York City two large boxes of summer goods which it intended to sell to the trade at St. Joseph and vicinity that season. The goods were delivered to defendant at New York City for shipment on July 6th and that company issued its bill of lading for them in which the destination was marked, " In the body of the bill, under the heading of "Description of Articles," there are the words, "Two (2) cases Clothing c/o M. P. R. R.," the latter letters meaning, care of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, a corporation operating a railway from St. Louis, Mo., to St. Joseph. It is also there stated that the goods were "marked, consigned and destined, as indicated below, to be carried over the line to said destination, or to be delivered to another carrier on the route to said destination." The goods were sent out in defendant's car over a line of railway terminating at East St. Louis, Illinois, a city on the eastern bank of the Mississippi river opposite St. Louis, Mo. They arrived at East St. Louis on July 11 and were delivered by defendant to the "St. Louis Transportation Company," a company which was engaged in transporting goods across the Mississippi river. The latter company put the goods on the depot platform of the Missouri Pacific Railroad and demanded a receipt. It seems that the boxes were not in good order and were short in weight and the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company refused to receive them unless those facts were noted on the receipt. The transfer company refused a receipt of that kind until July 27, when it accepted such receipt; the goods being thus delayed from the twelfth to the twenty-seventh of July, the Missouri Pacific then took them to St. Joseph where they arrived on the twenty-ninth. Plaintiff thereupon sued defendant for damages caused by the delay and recovered judgment in the trial court.
The contract contained in the bill of...
To continue reading
Request your trial