McLagan v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1902 |
| Citation | 89 N.W. 233,116 Iowa 183 |
| Parties | MCLAGAN v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Carroll county; S. M. Elwood, Judge.
Action for excessive freight charges. Judgment on directed verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Lee & Robb, for appellant.
Hubbard, Dawley & Wheeler, for appellee.
The plaintiff bought and shipped over the defendant's railway to Chicago, Ill., and over the Baltimore & Ohio Railway from there to Cumberland, Md., two car loads of corn from Odebolt, Iowa, one from Correctionville, and three from Carroll. The rate exacted upon delivery at Cumberland by the Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company was 28 cents per 100 pounds. The plaintiff claims that, having received a bid for 5,000 bushels of corn, he made inquiry of a bill clerk in the defendant's freight house at Carroll concerning the rate of carriage of corn in car-load lots to Cumberland, who named 22 1/2 cents per 100 pounds, and that in reliance on this rate the plaintiff bought and shipped the corn. On the other hand, the clerk denies having had any conversation on the subject, or being possessed of authority to fix the charges beyond the terminus of the defendant's lines. The freight charges were not inserted in the bill of lading, and whether plaintiff met with any loss in the transaction is not shown. Evidently, then, unless this clerk had authority to make contracts fixing freight charges beyond the defendant's road, the company is not liable. The record contains no evidence that such power had been expressly conferred, and, if possessed at all, it must have been because within the apparent scope of his duties. In the absence of the station agent, he acted in his stead, and in deciding the case he may as well be treated as having the same authority. That he might not negotiate shipments from places other than Carroll appears from Voorhees v. Railway Co., 71 Iowa, 735, 30 N. W. 29, 60 Am. Rep. 823. Nor do we think his employment in the company's local freight house at that place indicated authority to fix rates on connecting lines in remote portions of the country, over which the defendant did not undertake to carry property. It may be that, if it had received the goods simply marked or directed to Cumberland, a point on a connecting line, a contract might be implied to carry to that place, and at the rate fixed by the local agent. Angle v. Railroad Co., 9 Iowa, 487; Mulligan v. Railway Co., 36 Iowa, 181, 14 Am. Rep. 514; Beard v. Railway Co., 79 Iowa, 527, 44 N. W. 803. This is on the theory that, as the company's business is that of a common carrier, it may undertake to convey property to points not reached by its line, and its agent, having the duty to receive goods for transportation, will be presumed to have authority to enter into such agreements in its behalf. But here there was no undertaking to carry the corn beyond the terminus of the defendant's road. The bills of lading receipted for the corn “subject to the conditions and regulations of the published tariff of said company to be transported over the line of this railway to _____, and delivered after payment in like good order to ______, a company or carrier (if same are forwarded beyond the lines of the company's road), to be carried to the place of destination; it being expressly agreed that the responsibility of this company shall cease at this company's depot at which same are to be delivered to such carrier.” Then follows a form of guaranty of rates, left blank, based on specified conditions, and this provision: “It is further especially agreed that for all loss or damage occurring in the transit of said packages the legal remedy shall be against the particular carrier or forwarder only in whose custody the said packages may actually be at the time of the happening thereof, it being understood that the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company assumes no other responsibility for the safe carriage of or safety than may be incurred on its own road.” It was noted on the margin that transportation is to be “via B. & O. R. R.” The contract was simply to transport the corn over its own line, and deliver at its depot to the Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company, and there all responsibility ended. In other words, the contract was to carry over its own line, and forward, according to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial