Miller v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Company
| Decision Date | 28 June 1911 |
| Citation | 138 S.W. 902,157 Mo.App. 638 |
| Parties | S. L. MILLER, Respondent, v. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court.--Hon. A. H. Waller, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
L. W Hagerman and C. B. Sebastian for appellant.
Webster Gordon for respondent.
This is an action by a shipper of cattle against a common carrier to recover damages caused by negligent delay in the transportation of the property. The cause is before us on the appeal of defendant from a judgment recovered by plaintiff in the circuit court.
The cattle were shipped from defendant's station at Columbia Missouri, January 16, 1905, under a special live stock contract signed by both plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff desired to sell the cattle and for that purpose to ship them to the market at Chicago via St. Louis, with the privilege of unloading at St. Louis stock yards to try the market at that place. The terminus of defendant's railroad is at St. Louis and to carry the cattle on to Chicago it was necessary to turn them over to a connecting carrier. The shipment was consigned to a commission company at Chicago and the contract required defendant to haul said cars consigned to Drum Com. Co., Chicago, at the rate of nineteen cents per hundred pounds from Columbia to destination. The contract was prepared on a printed form and after the lines left for the insertion of the points of shipment and destination were the words in parentheses "Do not insert any station beyond our line." The agent of defendant testified that he had no authority to enter into a contract for the transportation of live stock beyond defendant's line and the principal contention of counsel for defendant is that the contract cannot be treated as one for a through shipment to Chicago for the reason that the agent at Columbia had no authority to contract for such through shipment and his lack of authority appeared on the face of the contract in the parenthetical clause above quoted.
Facts opposed to this contention are as follows: Across the face of the contract were stamped the words: which, translated, meant that plaintiff was to have the privilege of having the stock carried to the St. Louis stock yards and unloaded there in order that he might sell on that market and end the transportation if he so desired. The billing of defendant gave Chicago as the destination and the Chicago & Alton Railway Company as the connecting carrier from St. Louis to Chicago. The rate of 19 cents per hundred pounds was a through tariff rate and an arrangement existed between defendant and connecting companies operating between St. Louis and Chicago (including the Chicago & Alton Company) for the division of freight charges collected for such through shipments. Plaintiff did not find the market at St. Louis satisfactory and the cattle were reloaded and sent to Chicago over the Chicago & Alton railroad on the billing issued by defendant. The freight charges for the whole transportation were paid at Chicago by the consignee and we assume were divided between defendant and the Chicago & Alton Company in accordance with the terms of the arrangement existing between them. Defendant hauled the shipment to St. Louis in good time and the delay of which plaintiff complains occurred on the line of the connecting carrier.
The evidence discloses that the contract in question was not peculiar to this shipment but that it was the practice of defendant to enter...
To continue reading
Request your trial