Lyon Van Lines, Inc. v. Ogden
Decision Date | 20 December 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 16227,16227 |
Citation | 503 S.W.2d 632 |
Parties | LYON VAN LINES, INC., Appellant, v. Harold OGDEN et al., Appellees. (1st Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Ross, Banks, May, Cron & Cavin, Daniel J. Goldberg, Houston, for appellant.
Kenneth J. Vitucci, Houston, for appellees.
Lyon Van Lines, a common carrier, sued Mr. Harold Ogden and wife for charges of $2,308.46 for transporting household goods owned by the Ogdens from Warren, Michigan, to Houston. The trial court rendered a take nothing judgment against Lyon after a non-jury trial .
Mr. Ogden testified that he was a vice president of Precision Lazer, Inc., located in Michigan. His company moved him to Houston. Arrangements were made by Precision Lazer's purchasing agent with Farr Moving Company, Lyon's local agent in Detroit, to move the Ogden's furniture. Mr. Ogden made no contact with anyone from Lyon regarding the arrangements for transporting the goods. An estimator from Lyon contacted Mrs. Ogden at the request of Precision Lazer to determine the charges to be made. She later acknowledged receipt of the furniture in good condition on the bill of lading and inventory forms supplied by Lyon. The bill of lading designated the Ogdens as shipper at their Michigan address and as consignee at their Texas address. It was stamped 'Billed' and bore the notation 'charge to Precision Lazer, Inc.' It shows the charges and was admitted in evidence without objection.
Answers to interrogatories given by Mr. Ogden and admitted into evidence stated that Lyon Van Lines, Inc. picked up his household furniture in Michigan and delivered it to Houston. Mr. Ogden testified Precision Lazer issued its purchase order for payment of these charges, and he relied solely on this order for payment. He denied telling anyone from Lazer or Farr that he would accept personal responsibility for the charges and to his knowledge neither did his wife.
The only testimony as to the tariff was given by the president of Farr Moving Co. when he introduced in evidence his company's invoices. He then stated that the moving charges are computed by a combination of weight and mileage plus packing service. That soon after the weight tickets are made up, someone in the office with actual knowledge of the transaction gets them and the orders showing the service done 'and then he uses a tariff book to complete the charges.' The invoices were then admitted without objection. They show the weight as 15,340 pounds, the rate as $11.82 and the amount as $1,813.19.
Lyon promptly billed Precision Lazer, but it filed for bankruptcy some five months later without having paid Lyon's bill. Lyon then billed the Ogdens.
The trial court concluded that Lyon was entitled to recover neither the damages sued for nor its attorney's fee.
The trial court made findings of fact that 1) plaintiff is a common carrier, transporting goods for others for hire, 2) plaintiff delivered defendants' household goods from Michigan to their residence in Houston, 3) the shipment had been ordered by Mr. Ogden's employer, Precision Lazer, 4) which company had contracted with plaintiff to pay for the shipment and that plaintiff would look to it for payment, 5) after Precision Lazer became bankrupt, plaintiff sought payment from defendants, 6) who made no agreement with plaintiff to pay for the shipment, 7) plaintiff presented no evidence of having published a tariff schedule of its rates nor approval of them by the Interstate Commerce Commission, 8) plaintiff offered no evidence that the freight charges for the shipment were authorized by the tariff schedules and 9) plaintiff was and is a private corporation whose agents rendered the services for which suit has been brought.
In support of Lyon's first point of error, that the trial court failed to apply Federal law to the facts of this case, it relies on Section 323 of Title 49, U.S.C., and cases decided under it, to fix liability for the transportation charges against the Ogdens.
We sustain this point of error.
The general rule is that if a consignee accepts a shipment he becomes liable as a matter of law for the full amount of freight charges. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co. v. United States, 267 U .S. 395, 45 S.Ct. 233, 69 L.Ed. 678 (1925); Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Phelan Co., 444 S.W.2d 832 (Tex.Civ.App.1969, writ dism.). See also authorities collected under note 13, 49 U.S.C.A., Sec. 3(2).
The Interstate Commerce Act provides that no railroad (49 U.S.C.A., sec. 3(2)) or motor carrier (49 U.S.C.A., sec. 323) may deliver any freight until all tariff rates and charges thereon have been paid. This Act imposes upon the consignee who accepts the shipment the liability for the payment of freight and other charges without regard to any contract, and even though the consignee may have relied on a promise made by a third party to pay for all such charges. 13 Am.Jur.2d 944, Carriers, sec. 473.
The facts in National Van Lines, Inc. v. Herbert, 81 S.D. 633, 140 N.W.2d 36 (1966), decided by the Supreme Court of South Dakota, are strikingly similar to those before us. The court fixed liability for transportation charges against the defendants in that case, stating at pages 37 and 38:
The Ogdens contend that Lyon is precluded from relying on 49 U.S.C ., sec. 323 because it failed to specifically plead and prove the federal statutes relied on as a basis of recovery. They point out that Lyon pleaded an express contract as the basis of recovery, presented only evidence to prove a contract and that only at the time of oral agrument to the trial court did Lyon raise the issue of federal law. Although the record supports appellees'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Checker Van Lines v. Siltek Intern., Ltd.
...and even though the consignee may have relied on a promise by a third party to pay for all such charges." Lyon Van Lines, Inc. v. Ogden, 503 S.W.2d 632, 635 (Tex.Civ.App.1973). Many federal and state cases have recognized that a carrier may be estopped from recovering from a consignee when ......
-
American Red Ball Transit Co., Inc. v. McCarthy
...581, 40 S.Ct. 27, 63 L.Ed. 1151 (1919). National Van Lines, Inc. v. Herbert, 81 S.D. 633, 140 N.W.2d 36 (1966); Lyon Van Lines, Inc. v. Ogden, 503 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Civ.App.1973). Defendant's last contention is that he is only liable to the extent that plaintiff is unable to recover from Rand......
-
Tarrant Cnty. Coll. Dist. v. Sims
...to know the law, state or federal, and to be capable of taking "notice [of] and apply[ing] the proper rule." Lyon Van Lines v. Ogden , 503 S.W.2d 632, 636 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no writ) ; see also W&T Offshore v. Meyers , 577 S.W.3d 247, 256 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 20......
-
Liberty Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore Transp. Co., Inc., 2-83-141-CV
...a consignee which accepts a shipment from a carrier is the subject of a searching and well-reasoned opinion written in Lyon Van Lines, Inc. v. Ogden, 503 S.W.2d 632 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no In Lyon, it was held that under federal law and the law of this state, the consign......