Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 17 January 1872
• Citation: 54 Tenn. 253
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO. v. CAMPBELL & RICHARDS.

54 Tenn. 253

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO.

v.CAMPBELL & RICHARDS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Jan. 17, 1872.

FROM MONTGOMERY.

From the Circuit Court, May Term, 1870. JAMES E. RICE, J.

HORACE LURTON for plaintiff.

JAS. E. BAILEY for defendants.

MCFARLAND, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The following facts are sufficiently shown in the bill of exceptions, to raise the questions of law discussed:

In April, 1869, Campbell & Richards, merchants, doing business at Roaring Springs, Ky., ordered from a firm in Philadelphia six cases of boots and shoes. The boxes were marked: “Campbell & Richards, Roaring Springs, Ky., care Whitlock, McNichols & Co., Linton, Ky.,” and delivered to the Pennslyvania Railroad for transportation, and a receipt taken with conditions annexed, among other things providing in substance that said Pennsylvania Railroad Company should not be liable for the goods beyond the terminus of their road. The plaintiff in error owns a line of railway extending from Louisville, in Kentucky, to the line of Tennessee, some thirteen miles north of Clarksville, in said latter State, there connecting with the Memphis, Clarksville and Louisville Railroad, which said latter road passes by the city of Clarksville, and which, at the time of this transaction, had been leased, and was being operated, by the plaintiff in error. Linton, Ky., is on the Cumberland River, some sixty miles below Clarksville, and between those points steamboats were running for the transportation of freight at the time of this transaction. The depot of the Memphis, Clarksville and Louisville Railroad at Clarksville is some four hundred yards distant from the steamboat landing on the Cumberland, where a wharf-boat was kept for the storage of goods to be shipped by the river. Roaring Springs is some thirteen miles from Linton, Ky.

It appears the goods in question were received by the plaintiff in error at Louisville and transported to Clarksville, arriving there about the 27th or 28th of April, and were stored in the freight depot of the road. It is admitted that Clarksville is the proper railroad station where the goods should have been stopped on their route to Linton. It is proven by the agent that he immediately mailed to Campbell & Richards a notice that the goods had arrived. On the 14th of May, 1869, Richards, of the firm of Campbell & Richards, called at the railroad depot at Clarksville, and inquired for the goods. Other goods were delivered to him, but these were not; he was told they had not arrived. This seems probably to have been a mistake or oversight of a young man who was at the time in the office, though not the regular agent. Campbell & Richards having several times inquired of Whitlock, McNichols & Co., at Linton, Ky., for their goods, and having written to the parties of whom they purchased, and hearing nothing of the goods, about the last of June supplied the place of these goods by the purchase of others. Afterwards, by the 10th of July, they were, for the first time, informed by letters from the parties of whom they had purchased, that the goods had been traced to Clarksville. About the 6th of June of the same year the railroad agent at Clarksville delivered the goods to the firm of Whitlock, McKinney & Co., a firm of commission and forwarding merchants, as they are styled in the record, and they were by them stored in their warehouse at Trice's Landing, on the Cumberland, near the town of New Providence, some two miles from Clarksville. Said firm of Whitlock, McKinney & Co. kept a line of drays running between their warehouse and the depot, but did not haul goods into the country. A line of wagons ran between Trice's Landing and Roaring Springs. Whitlock, McKinney & Co. did not forward the goods, because, as appears, it was not their custom to forward goods unless directed to do so by the owner. They sent word to Campbell & Richards that the goods were in their possession. It appears, however, that Campbell & Richards did not receive the information until after they had purchased other goods. They afterwards saw the goods in the warehouse of Whitlock, McKinney & Co., but refused to receive them, and brought this action to recover their value.

It appears that Whitlock, McNichols & Co., is composed of three of the members of Whitlock, McKinney & Co., but the business of the two firms does not appear to be in any way connected.

The declaration avers the failure of the plaintiff to carry the goods according to its undertaking, which is laid in different forms, also joining counts in trover. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the plaintiff below.

In two recent cases at Knoxville, not yet reported, this Court has decided that where there are connecting lines of railway, and one road receives goods for transportation, marked and consigned...