Louisville & N.R. Co. v. A.N. Chappell & Co., 6 Div. 865

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtRICE, J. PER CURIAM.
Citation21 Ala.App. 531,109 So. 573
Decision Date20 April 1926
Docket Number6 Div. 865

109 So. 573

21 Ala.App. 531


6 Div. 865

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 20, 1926

Rehearing Denied May 18, 1926

Reversed on Mandate Sept. 7, 1926

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.

Action by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company against A.N. Chappell & Co. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded on authority of 109 So. 574.

Jones & Thomas, of Montgomery, and McClellan, Rice & Stone and J.K. Jackson, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

[21 Ala.App. 532] J. Reese Murray, of Birmingham, for appellee.


Appellant, as delivering carrier of an interstate shipment, sued to recover an amount due as an undercharge on a shipment of freight.

It is true that the federal statutes control in litigation of this kind. But as said in Sou. Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 119 Ala. 539, 24 So. 552, 43 L.R.A. 385, 72 Am.St.Rep. 936:

"Unless the national law has been constructed by the Supreme Court of the United States, the courts of the various states will follow their own judgment in determining its effect on the contract."

We have been cited to no case, and know of none, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, where the question raised by this appeal has been passed upon.

It seems clearly to be the law of this state that where one is known to be acting in a representative capacity in contracting with another, such an one may not be held individually liable upon the contract. Cornelius v. Cent. of Ga. R.R., 13 Ala.App. 533, 69 So. 331; Creighton v. Air Nitrates Corp., 208 Ala. 330, 94 So. 356.

We do not think appellee can be said to be the consignee of the shipment here in question. He was merely the agent of the consignor, and his capacity was made known to appellant.

It is our opinion that the trial court properly gave the general affirmative charge in favor of appellee, and, of course, correctly refused to give a like charge in favor of appellant. Cornelius v. Cent. of Ga. R.R., 13 Ala.App. 533, 69 So. 331; Central of Ga.Ry. Co. v. So. Ferro Concrete Co., 193 Ala. 108, 68 So. 981, Ann.Cas.1916E, 376.

Rather than finding a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that precludes this holding it would seem that, indirectly at least, the opinion of that court in the case of L. & N.R.R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59, 44 S.Ct. 441, 68 L.Ed. 900, is an authority in favor of it....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Casteel v. City of Decatur
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 6 Mayo 1926
    ...... ordinance declaring "any person or persons committing an. offense prohibited by the laws of the state of Alabama". guilty of a ......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. A.N. Chappell & Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 17 Junio 1926
    ...... freight charges upon goods delivered by the plaintiff to the. defendant as consignee under an interstate shipment, a. mistake having been made in the amount of freight paid and. which was less than the lawful rate, and the amount here. ......
  • Griggs v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 29 Junio 1926

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