Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. v. Reeves Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22062.,22062.
• Citation: 181 N.W. 335,148 Minn. 196
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO. v. REEVES COAL CO.

148 Minn. 196

181 N.W. 335

MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO.

v.REEVES COAL CO.

No. 22062.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 4, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. C. Leary, Judge.

Action by the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company against the Reeves Coal Company, with counterclaim by defendant. From a judgment disallowing the counterclaim and in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The provisions of a railway tariff established under the Interstate Commerce Law must be complied with until changed or abrogated in the manner provided by that law, and no act of either shipper or carrier will release the other from a liability imposed by such tariff.

The fact that the carrier deviated from the route designated in the bill of lading did not relieve the shipper from demurrage charges imposed by the tariff for failure to unload within the prescribed time after arrival at destination.

Although the carrier becomes an insurer of safe delivery if he deviates from the designated route without the consent of the shipper, he does not become liable for losses resulting from the inability of the shipper to accomplish some special purpose of which he had no knowledge.

Where the deviation from the designated route prevented the shipper from diverting the shipment to a more favorable market, as he had intended to do, but the carrier had no knowledge of such intention, the loss of the more favorable market cannot be deemed to have been within the contemplation of the parties, as a consequence which might result from misrouting, and the carrier is not liable therefor. Stanley B. Houck, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Alfred H. Bright, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

In the years 1912 and 1913 defendant purchased a large quantity of coal at the mines in Tennessee which it shipped in carload lots over the Louisville & Nashville Railway and connecting lines to itself at Minneapolis, Minn. Plaintiff, known as the Soo, received these shipments from connecting lines, transported them to Minneapolis and there delivered them to defendant. Many of the cars were not unloaded within the time allowed therefor by the published tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the demurrage which, under the provisions of the tariff, accrued to it on account of such delays.

The shipments were made under bills of lading which routed them over the Louisville & Nashville, the Big Four, the Ann Arbor and the Soo Railways. The shipments which were carried over the route designated in the bills of lading were delivered by the Big Four to the Ann Arbor road, were transported by the Ann Arbor road to Frankfort on the east shore of Lake Michigan, were ferried across the lake by the Ann Arbor road, and were delivered to plaintiff at Manitowoc, Wis., or Manistique, Mich.

Plaintiff's claim for demurrage on the cars which followed this route was conceded by defendant at the trial and is no longer in controversy. The shipments still in controversy were not delivered to the Ann Arbor road at all, but were delivered by the Big Four directly to plaintiff at Kolze, Ill., from which point they were transported by plaintiff to Minneapolis. All the bills of lading named defendant as consignee and Minneapolis as the point of destination; but defendant did not intend to have the coal brought to Minneapolis for the reason that Minneapolis received its coal by way of the Great Lakes and Duluth, and the expense of allrail shipments, such as these, was so great that coal so shipped could not be sold in the Minneapolis market except at a loss. By diverting these shipments at Manitowoc, defendant could reach a considerable territory in which it could compete with shipments made by the lakes. It had an arrangement with the Ann Arbor road, provided for in the published tariff of that road, by which cars arriving at Frankfort were held for reconsignment orders. Defendant had salesmen soliciting orders for coal, and, as these orders were received, filled them by directing the Ann Arbor road to reconsign the cars held at Frankfort to the points at which the coal had been sold. The bills of lading, however, contained nothing to show that the cars were to be held or reconsigned and plaintiff had no knowledge of the arrangement between defendant and the Ann Arbor road. It was stipulated that the shipments now in controversy were delivered to plaintiff by the Big Four at Kolze, Ill., consigned to defendant at Minneapolis, without any routing instructions or anything on the transfer slips to indicate that they should have been delivered to the Ann Arbor road, and that plaintiff promptly and safely transported them to Minneapolis and duly tendered them to defendant. It was also stipulated that if plaintiff was entitled to recover demurrage the amount claimed was the correct amount.

Defendant's answer put in issue the claim for demurrage and set forth a counterclaim for the damages alleged to have resulted from the misrouting. The trial court disallowed the counterclaim and rendered judgment for plaintiff for the amount of the demurrage. Defendant appealed.

It is conceded that plaintiff had no actual knowledge of the contents of the bills of lading; that it received the shipments in controversy from the Big Four at Kolze, Ill., without any knowledge of the misrouting; and that acting in entire good faith it transported them promptly and safely from that point to the point of destination and tendered them to defendant, who was both shipper and consignee. But defendant insists that a through bill of lading is binding, not only on the initial carrier who issued it, but on all connecting carriers who handle the shipment, whether they have actual knowledge of its terms or not, and that plaintiff was bound to know the provisions of the bills of lading, and is not entitled to demurrage for the reason that the shipments were not transported over the route designated therein. It is probably true that by virtue of the federal statutes the rights and obligations of the shipper and of the...