Mexican Light Power Co v. Texas Mexican Ry Co
Decision Date | 16 June 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 404,404 |
Citation | 67 S.Ct. 1440,331 U.S. 731,91 L.Ed. 1779 |
Parties | MEXICAN LIGHT & POWER CO., Limited, v. TEXAS MEXICAN RY. CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles W. Bell, of Houston, Tex., for petitioner.
Mr. John P. Bullington, of Houston, Tex., for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for injury to goods in the course of an export shipment by rail. The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company in Sharon, Pennsylvania, goods ultimately destined for the Mexican Light and Power Company. According to the bill of lading issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad the goods were consigned to
The Mexican Light & Power Co. Ltd., c/o Fausto Trevino, Customs Agent, (National Railways of Mexico).
The destination was Laredo, Texas, with the further notation.
'For Export to: El Oro, Mexico, Estado de Mexico via Acambaro via laredo.'
The Transportation charges were prepaid at the export rate, less than the domestic, and they covered shipment not merely into Laredo but up to the international boundary.
The Texas-Mexican Railway was the last of the series of connecting carriers over which the machinery was routed by the Pennsylvania. The latter, having received the shipment at Alice, Texas, continued the carriage to its yards at Laredo. At Laredo, there was issued to Fausto Trevino, the agent, what formally appears to be a bill of lading consigning the shipment to petitioner at El Oro. The record is silent as to the circumstances that brought this document into existence, but it is admitted that the respondent received no payment for transporting the goods other than its share in the export rate prepaid to the Pennsylvania under the Sharon bill of lading. Trevino did use the second bill of lading for clearing he shipmen t with the Mexican customs, but there is no showing that the first bill of lading would not have served as documentation for this purpose. The respondent railroad then moved the goods, still in the original cars, from its yards to the international boundary. There, the shipment passed to the National Railways of Mexico and it was on its lines, in Mexico, that the machinery was injured.
Petitioner brought this suit in one of the district courts of Texas. Judgment went for the railroad. The Texas Court of Civil Appeals reversed, 190 S.W.2d 838, but was in turn reversed by the Supreme Court of Texas. 193 S.W.2d 964. We granted certiorari, 329 U.S. 697, 67 S.Ct. 97, because important issues affecting the carrier's liability under the Interstate Commerce Act were pressed upon us.
On full consideration of the case if falls within a very narrow compass. The goods consigned to Laredo moved on the bill of lading issued at Sharon with the indicated connections, including the Texas-Mexican. By virtue of the Carmack Amendment, 34 Stat. 584, amended, 38 Stat. 1196, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(11), that bill of lading determines the rights of the consignee. While each connecting carrier is, of course, liable for damage occurring on its line, only the initial carrier is liable for damage on any of the connections. Unless, therefore, the Texas-Mexican Railway was an initial carrier with reference to the Mexican Railroad it cannot be responsible for injuries on that road. And it did not become an initial carrier merely by force of what purported to be a bill of lading issued at Laredo unless the so-called second bill of lading represents the initiation of a new shipment on the Texas-Mexican.
We agree with the Texas Supreme Court that nothing happened at Laredo to displace the duty which was created at Sharon for the carriage of the goods by the Texas-Mexican to the international boundary, or to modify the terms of its undertaking when, at Alice, it received the goods under the Sharon bill of lading.
What was said of the shipment of cattle in Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. Ward, 244 U.S. 383, 387, 37 S.Ct. 617, 619, 61 L.Ed. 1213, is precisely applicable to the shipment of machinery in this case:
No matter what the convenience which a consignee may derive from a bill of lading issued by a connecting carrier on a through shipment, unless the connecting carrier has received a consideration for the bill of lading in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cna Ins. Co. v. Hyundai Merch. Marine Co.
...this as a holding and has treated this issue as an open question, so it is likely dicta. In Mexican Light & Power Co. v. Texas Mexican R.R., 331 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1440, 91 L.Ed. 1779 (1947), the Court considered a shipment of cargo under two overlapping bills of lading, as in Missouri, K. ......
-
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp.
...for damage caused by any carrier within a single course of shipment.This Court's decision in Mexican Light & Power Co. v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 331 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1440, 91 L.Ed. 1779 (1947), supports the conclusion that only the receiving rail carrier must issue a Carmack bill of lading......
-
Seguros Comercial Americas v. AMERICAN PRES. LINES
...is no showing that any additional consideration was paid for a second bill of lading. In Mexican Light & Power Co. v. Texas Mexican R.R., 331 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1440, 1441-42, 91 L.Ed. 1779 (1947), the Court held that a shipment from Pennsylvania to Mexico with a change of carriers at Lared......
-
Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. American President Lines, Inc., s. 86-2964
...Johnson v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 695 F.2d 253, 258 n. 3 (7th Cir.1982); see also Mexican Light Co. v. Texas Mexican Railway Co., 331 U.S. 731, 67 S.Ct. 1440, 91 L.Ed. 1779 (1947). Whether a particular contract is indeed a through bill of lading is a question of fact * * *." 6......