Jordan v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.

Decision Date11 June 1917
Docket NumberNo. 12358.,12358.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesJORDAN 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.

BLAND, J.

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:

"Live Stock. — Ratings given above are based upon declared valuation by shippers, not exceeding the following: Each horse or pony (gelding, mare or stallion), mule or jack — $100.00. When the declared value exceeds the above, an addition of 25 per cent. will be made to the rate for each 100 per cent. or fraction thereof, of additional declared valuation per head; which said alternative rates are fully shown in and upon the regular tariffs, and classifications printed, published and posted by the said company as required by law; and, whereas, the first party, in order to avail himself of said alternative rates, and to secure the benefits thereof, has declared and does hereby declare said animals to be of the value as follows, to wit: Each horse value $100.00 each, to which value the rate aforesaid is proportioned by the classification and tariffs aforesaid: Now, in consideration of the premises and of the foregoing, it is expressly agreed that for all purposes connected with, resulting from, or in any manner growing out of this contract, and the transportation of the said animals pursuant thereto, the value of the said animals and of each thereof, shall in no case exceed the said valuation. It is further agreed in consideration of the alternative rate so made by the said railway company and accepted by the first party, that in case of loss or damage to said animals, whether resulting from accident or negligence of said railway company, or its servants, the said railway company shall not be liable in excess of the actual loss or damage; and in no case shall the said railway company be liable in any manner in excess of the agreed valuation upon each animal lost or damaged."

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:

"It is manifest from the terms of the provision itself that notice to defendant is required only in those instances where the wrong to plaintiff occurred on its line. If the wrong occurred on a connecting line, as it did in this case, then the provision does not require a notice to defendant, but to the connecting line. This is made still more apparent by the latter part of the stipulation which declares...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Jordan v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 Diciembre 1920
  • Jordan v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 20 Diciembre 1920
  • Billingsley v. Kline Cloak Company
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 11 Junio 1917
  • Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 3 Febrero 1919
    ... ... 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 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT