MacFarlane v. Adams Exp Co.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1905
• Docket Number: 23.
• Citation: 137 F. 982
• Parties: MACFARLANE v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

137 F. 982

MACFARLANE v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.

No. 23.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May 22, 1905

W. E Rex, for plaintiff.

B Gordon Bromley and Thos. De Witt Cuyler, for defendant.

J. B McPHERSON, District Judge.

On February 9, 1903, the plaintiff delivered to an employe of the Adams Express Company, in the city of Philadelphia, a suit case containing wearing apparel to be carried to Norwood, Pa., for which she was given the usual receipt. She put no value upon the suit case or its contents and none was asked for. At the trial the receipt was offered in evidence by the plaintiff, and she did not prove, or offer to prove, that she had not read it, or did not know what it contained, or did not understand it, or had not agreed to its terms, or had been induced to sign it, by any fraud or under any misapprehension. The relevant portions of the receipt are as follows: The top line, in dark legible type, declares that:

'The company's charge is based upon the value of the property, which must be declared by the shipper.'

A few lines further down are the words in large type:

'Valued at $ . . .

'Marked . . .

Which the Company agrees to carry upon the following terms and conditions, to which the shipper agrees, and as evidence thereof accepts this bill of lading.'

Certain conditions follow in smaller type, the first being this:

'(1) In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is regulated by the value thereof and is based upon a valuation of not exceeding fifty dollars unless a greater value is declared, the shipper agrees that the value of said property is not more than fifty dollars, unless a greater value is stated herein, and that the company shall not be liable in any event for more than the value so stated, nor for more than fifty dollars if no value is stated herein.'

The bottom line, in type similar to the top line, is this:

'Liability limited to $50, unless a greater value is declared.'

The suit case did not reach its destination and has never been found. The defendant offered no explanation of the loss admitted in effect, although not expressly, that negligence was properly chargeable; and offered to submit to a verdict of $50, under the foregoing conditions of the receipt. The jury found that the defendant had been negligent, and assessed the plaintiff's damages at $215, the court reserving the question of law whether a larger sum than $50 could be recovered. It is unnecessary to spend time in the discussion of the point reserved. Upon the facts stated the plaintiff's acceptance of the receipt was equivalent to an express assent to its terms, and she was as much bound thereby as if she had signed the paper. It is true that, if the effect of the receipt were to be determined according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the attempt to limit ...