Jordan v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
Decision Date | 11 June 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 12358.,12358. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | JORDAN et al. v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Putnam County; G. W. Wanamaker, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by George Jordan and another, doing business as Jordan Bros., against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court, which, in 191 S. W. 70, retransferred the case to the Court of Appeals. Reversed and remanded.
O. M. Spencer, of St. Joseph, Palmer Trimble, of Keokuk, Iowa, M. G. Roberts, of Richmond, and A. W. Mullins, of Linneus, for appellant. N. A. Franklin, of Unionville, and Fogle & Fogle, of Lancaster, for respondents.
This is an action for damages suffered to horses shipped by plaintiffs from Lemons Station, Mo., to Buffalo, N. Y., under a shipping contract with the defendant. The defendant transported the horses to Chicago, where they were delivered to another carrier under a new contract to take them to Buffalo, N. Y. The horses were damaged between Chicago, Ill., and Buffalo, N. Y. The contract of shipment contained the following provisions:
This was an interstate shipment and made under the provisions of the Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act. 34 U. S. Stat. at L. 595, c. 3591. It is held that the effect of the Carmack Amendment was to give federal jurisdiction control over interstate commerce, and to make supreme the federal legislation regulating liability for property transported by common carriers in interstate commerce, and that the decisions of the federal courts in construing this statute must govern and not the decisions of the state courts, and "in the light of the recent rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States our decisions have been wholly superseded and become matters of ancient legal history or legal curiosity only." Donovan v. Wells Fargo & Co., 265 Mo. loc. cit. 300, 177 S. W. 842; A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173, 34 Sup. Ct. 556, 58 L. Ed. 901; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 34 Sup. Ct. 380, 58 L. Ed. 703; K. C. Southern Ry. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 Sup. Ct. 391, 57 L. Ed. 683; M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690.
It is held by the federal courts that a limited liability live stock contract, based upon the declared value as contradistinguished from the actual value of the animals shipped, where alternative rates are provided, is not void, for it is not in the nature of a contract against the negligence of the carrier. Hart v. Pa. Rd. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 Sup. Ct. 151, 28 L. Ed. 717; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257; Donovan v. Wells Fargo & Co., 265 Mo. 291, 177 S. W. 839. And it is held that it has become an established rule of the common law "as declared by this court in many cases that such a carrier may by a fair, open, just and reasonable agreement limit the amount recoverable by a shipper in case of loss or damage to an agreed value made for the purpose of obtaining the lower of two or more rates of charges proportioned to the amount of the risk." Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, supra, 226 U. S. loc. cit. 509, 33 Sup. Ct. 153, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257. And, "if the charges filed were unreasonable, the only attack that could be made upon such regulation would be by proceedings contesting their reasonableness before the Interstate Commerce Commission." Boston & Maine Rd. Co. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. loc. cit. 121, 34 Sup. Ct. 532, 58 L. Ed. 868, L. R. A. 1915B, 450, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593.
We therefore hold that defendant's liability under its contract in this case is limited to $100 per animal, and that the lower court erred in its instruction wherein it disallowed the contract of shipment in toto and permitted the jury to find for the plaintiffs in the sum of $850. Appellant further urges the point that plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in this case because they did not give the defendant notice of their loss within ten days from the time the horses were removed from the cars. The contract provided that the defendant should not be liable for any damage to the animals unless a claim should be made in writing within ten days from the time said animals were removed from the car, and in case of loss or damage upon any connecting line such connecting line should not be liable unless claim should be made in like manner to the agent of such connecting line. The contract further provided that defendant shall not "be liable for loss or damage after delivery to any connecting line, nor for any loss or damage not incurred upon its own line." Reasonable provisions requiring the shipper to give notice to the carrier of loss or damage to the subject of the shipment have been uniformly upheld, and this under the provision of the Carmack Amendment. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. 541, 60 L. Ed. 948; Kemper Milling Co. v. Railway, 193 Mo. App. 469, 186 S. W. 8; Hamilton v. Railroad, 177 Mo. App. 145, 164 S. W. 248; Missouri, etc., Rd. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690. And in Clegg v. Railroad, 203 Fed. 971, 122 C. C. A. 273, it is held that a provision for a one-day notice was valid under the circumstances of that case.
And we hold valid the provisions as to notice in the contract before us, and, having so determined, it next devolves upon us to construe the meaning of said provision so as to decide as to upon whom the notice provided for shall be served. It is held in the case of Davis v. Wabash Rd. Co., 122 Mo. App. loc. cit. 643, 644, 99 S. W. 17, 18, construing a contract having provisions practically the same as the one before us, that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Jordan v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
- Jordan v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
- Billingsley v. Kline Cloak Company
-
Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Smith
... ... 376; Hamilton v. Cleveland, etc., R ... R. Co., 206 Ill.App. 270, N.C. & St. L. R. R. Co. v ... Kamper, 78 So. 925; Olson v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. et ... al., 250 F. Rep. 372; Houston, etc., v. Houston ... Pckg. Co., 203 S.W. 1140; Kenney v. Chicago, ... Burlington, etc., R. R. Co., 167 N.W. 475; St. L. & ... I. Mt. v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592; Jordan v. Chicago, ... etc., R. R. Co., 196 S.W. 417 ... Many ... other decisions of federal and state courts might be cited, ... but in our ... ...