McConnell v. Payne

• Decision Date: 14 May 1924
• Docket Number: (No. 533-3729.)
• Citation: 262 S.W. 72
• Parties: McCONNELL v. PAYNE, Agent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 72

262 S.W. 72

McCONNELL v. PAYNE, Agent.

(No. 533-3729.)

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

May 14, 1924.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Pearl McConnell against John Barton Payne, Agent. Judgment for plaintiff was reformed and affirmed by Court of Civil Appeals (234 S. W. 942), and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

F. J. McCord and Lacy & Bramlette, all of Longview, for plaintiff in error.

Young & Stinchcomb, of Longview, and Geo. Thompson and R. S. Shapard, both of Dallas, for defendant in error.

CHAPMAN, J.

Plaintiff, Pearl McConnell, recovered judgment in the district court against defendant, Jno. Barton Payne, Agent, for $1,360.50, for loss of baggage in an intrastate carriage by a railroad. The Court of Civil Appeals reduced the judgment to $100, for the reason that the railroad, at the time of carriage of the baggage, was under federal control, and the following tariff was in effect:

"Rule 10. (a) Subject to limitations shown in rule 9 [immaterial to the question made by the record], 150 pounds of baggage, not exceeding $100 in value, may be checked without additional charge for each adult passenger.

"Rule 11. (d) Unless a greater sum is declared by a passenger and charges paid for excess value at time of delivery to carrier, the value of property belonging to, or checked for, a passenger shall be deemed and agreed to be not in excess of the amount specified in rule 10, and the carriers issuing and participating in this tariff will not accept claim for a greater sum in case of loss or damage.

"If passenger declares according to the form prescribed by checking carrier, a greater value than specified in the rule mentioned in the preceding paragraph, there will be an additional charge at the rate of 10 cents for each $100 or fraction thereof above such agreed value."

The Court of Civil Appeals found that the Director General of Railroads had complied with all requirements in promulgating said tariff, and that the plaintiff had no actual notice of said tariff, and that plaintiff made no declaration as to the value of her baggage.

The question now before this court is as to whether the President, under the Federal Control Act (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3115¾ a-3115¾p), had authority to fix rates affecting the intrastate carriage of baggage by railroads.

In the case of Boston & Maine Railroad Company v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 34 Sup. Ct. 526, 58 L. Ed. 868, L. R. A. 1915B, 450, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593, the question of excess value of baggage and notice to the passenger in an interstate carriage was considered at length, and the cases on the subject reviewed. The regulation limiting the value to $100 where no value was declared was upheld, and it was held that the notice which follows from the filed and published regulations as required by the statute and the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission was sufficient to charge the passenger with notice of the regulation, and that, if the passenger declares no valuation of his baggage, the rate fixed by the regulation and the corresponding liability automatically attach. In discussing these questions the court said:

"The effect of such filing is to permit the carrier by such regulations to obtain commensurate compensation for the responsibility assumed for the safety of the passenger's baggage, and to require the passenger, whose knowledge of the character and value of his baggage is peculiarly his own, to declare its value and pay for the excess amount. * * * But the effect of the regulations, filed as required, giving notice of rates based upon value when the baggage to be transported was of a higher value than $100, and the delivery and acceptance of the baggage without declaration of value or notice to the carrier of such higher value, charges the carrier with liability to the extent of $100 only."

In Northern Pacific Railroad Company v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 39 Sup. Ct. 502, 63 L. Ed. 900, the question before the court was stated at the outset of the case by Chief Justice White, in the following language:

"In taking over the railroads from private ownership to its control and operation, was the resulting power of the United States to fix the rates to be charged for the transportatation services to be by it rendered subordinated to the asserted authority of the several states to regulate the rates for all local or intrastate business, is the issue raised on this record."

And in discussing this question, the court used the following language:

"We are thus brought to the question whether the state authority controls the power of the United States as to intrastate rates. No elaboration could make clearer than do the act of Congress of 1916, the proclamation of the President exerting the powers given, and the act of 1918, dealing with the situation created by the exercise of such authority, that no divided but a complete possession and control were given the United States for all purposes as to the...