Jones v. Cincinnati, S. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 June 1890
• Citation: 8 So. 61,89 Ala. 376
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: JONES v. CINCINNATI, S. & M. RY. CO.

8 So. 61

89 Ala. 376

JONES v. CINCINNATI, S. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 17, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Hale county; JOHN MOORE, Judge.

Action by Jim Jones against the Cincinnati, Selma & Mobile Railway Company to recover the value of certain goods shipped on the defendant road, but which were never delivered to the plaintiff at their place of destination. The facts are set out at length in the opinion. Upon the evidence the court charged the jury, at the written request of the defendant that "if they believe the evidence they must find for the defendant." The plaintiff duly excepted to this charge, and, after judgment for the defendant, now appeals and assigns the giving of the charge as error.

Coleman & Coleman, for appellant.

Harrison & Ligon, for appellee.

STONE C.J.

This case comes before us on uncontroverted facts. The appellant delivered to the appellee railway company, at Greensborough, Ala., two boxes and one bundle of household goods, and received therefor a bill of lading signed by the defendant's depot agent, describing the packages, and stating they were consigned to Jim Jones at Birmingham, Ala., "to be transported by the Cincinnati, Selma & Mobile Railway Company, and connecting rail, water, or other carriers, until they reach the station, or wharf nearest to ultimate destination." The bill of lading contains the following clause: "It is mutually agreed, in consideration of the rates herein guarantied, that the liability of each carrier, as to goods destined beyond its own route, shall be terminated by proper delivery of them to the next succeeding carrier." The defendant railway company's line did not extend to Birmingham, but terminated at Akron, a station on the line of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company. Freight shipped to Birmingham from Greensborough by defendant's line passed at Akron from its line to that of the Alabama Great Southern, as the connecting railway to Birmingham. It is admitted that the freight reached Akron in safety, and was there delivered to the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company to be transported to Birmingham. It never reached the latter place, and was lost to plaintiff.

Muschamp v. Railway Co., 8 Mees. & W. 421, is a leading case on one feature of the question presented by this record. We followed that case in Railroad Co. v. Copeland, 63 Ala. 219. Our ruling was that when a railroad company gives a bill of lading for goods to be delivered beyond its own route, and does not by express agreement limit its liability to loss or injury suffered on its own line, it thereby binds itself for the safe delivery of the goods at their ultimate destination, whether the injury or loss was suffered on its own line, or on that of another connecting one. And that may be regarded as the general doctrine on the subject, whenever there is no agreement which varies the rule. It has come to be customary, however, for railroads, when goods are received for transportation which must pass over two or more connecting roads before reaching the place to which they are consigned, to insert a clause similar to the one found in the bill of lading before us, that is, a clause which limits the liability of each connecting road to loss or injury suffered while on its line, and until the goods are safely delivered to the next connecting line. And we have held that, when a bill of lading containing such clause is tendered to the shipper at the time he offers his goods for shipment, and is accepted by him, and the goods shipped, this is a legitimate limitation on the measure of the carrier's liability, and becomes a part of the contract, binding on each of the contracting parties. Railroad Co. v. Thomas, 83 Ala. 343, 3 South. Rep. 802. And the following authorities assert a similar principle: Steele v. Townsend, 37 Ala. 247; Railroad Co. v. Moore, 51 Ala. 394; Railway Co. v. Culver, 75 Ala. 587; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Mt. Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173, 4 South. Rep. 356; Railroad Co. v. Sherrod, 84 Ala. 178, 4 South. Rep. 29; Banking Co. v. Smitha, 85 Ala. 47, 4 South. Rep. 708. The...