Minot Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 15 April 1946 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 1602. |
Citation | 65 F. Supp. 293 |
Parties | MINOT BEVERAGE CO. v. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RY. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Sidney G. Blacker (of Blacker & Blacker), of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
C. W. Wright, John C. De Mar, and Richard Musenbrock, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
The facts are stipulated. They are as follows: On May 29, 1944, 736 cases of brandy, each containing 12 4/5 quart bottles of brandy, were delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at South Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for shipment to the plaintiff. The goods were shipped over the lines of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company, defendant herein, and were delivered to plaintiff at Minneapolis, Minnesota, by the latter railroad on June 5, 1944. Shortly thereafter (on June 26, 1944), plaintiff discovered that four cases of the brandy were missing from the shipment and that 233 additional bottles were in a broken condition.
On February 7, 1945, plaintiff's agent wrote defendant the following letter:
"* * *
Gentlemen:
Will you please refer to your pro number 3463 of June 8, 1944, covering a shipment of 736 cases of brandy and imported wines weighing 35,420 pounds which was shipped from the Imported Liquors Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to the Kedney Warehouse Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Believe your records will indicate that there was some damage in connection with this shipment and in a short time a claim will be filed against you by the Minot Beverage Company of Minot, North Dakota, for the amount of loss in this connection.
I am merely writing this letter in behalf of the Minot Beverage Company in order that your files may indicate that a claim is pending which will be handed in as soon as complete information is obtained.
Yours very truly H. H. Janke." HHJ J
On March 29, 1945, the plaintiff wrote defendant as follows:
"* * *
Gentlemen:
Will you please refer to our letter of February 7 in which we informed you that a claim would be filed on your pro 3463 of June 3, 1944.
Our claim for $1000.12 is attached hereto covering the breakage to this car of 736 cases of LaSaurex Brandy. At the time this car reached Minneapolis 4 cases were completely empty and there were 233 bottles of fifths broken making a total of 23 5/12 cases of brandy short.
A certified copy of Invoice No. 11070 issued by M. A. Hoencke, 720 Metropolitan Life Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota, is attached hereto. This established the cost price to us of $42.71 per case.
A copy of the freight bill, invoice and inspection report issued by Kedney Warehouse of Minneapolis, Minnesota, is attached hereto which we believe gives you complete information on the claim.
We shall ask that you kindly pass this claim for immediate payment since we believe you have all the necessary information to verify our claim. If additional information is required, will you kindly advise us promptly.
* * *"
Defendant contends that plaintiff cannot collect because it failed to file its claim for such loss and damage within the time required by the bill of lading. The bill of lading provides:
Defendant's contention raises the sole issue of the case, for defendant recognizes the correctness of the amount claimed and also the existence of the loss and damages claimed. Because, as the parties recognize, the letter of February 7, 1945, was the only pertinent communication between plaintiff and defendant prior to the end of the nine month period of limitation, the issue is narrowed to the question, Does the letter of February 7, 1944, constitute the filing of a "claim" within the meaning of the bill of lading provision noted? Defendant contends, and plaintiff does not dispute, that if defendant pays a claim from which it is relieved by reason of this provision, it would be granting an unlawful preference.
Analysis of the cases and the problem seems to require the conclusion that the letter of February 7, 1945, does state a "claim" within the meaning of the bill of lading. The case of Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. v. Blish Milling Company, 1915, 241 U.S. 190, 36 S.Ct. 541 543, 60 L.Ed. 948, contained a provision in the bill of lading therein involved which was essentially identical with the one in this case. It declared that "claims for loss, damages, or delay must be made in writing to the carrier at the point of delivery or at the point of origin within four months after the delivery of the property * * *." The shipper (plaintiff there) had sent the carrier (defendant there) a group of telegrams, the last one saying, Speaking of the time limitations contained in the bill of lading provision and determining if a "claim" as required by the bill of lading had been submitted to the railroad, the then Justice Hughes declared for a unanimous court, 241 U.S. at pages 196, 198, 36 S.Ct. at page 545: "* * * The purpose of the stipulation is not to escape liability, but to facilitate prompt investigation."
And further:
These principles and observations seem applicable to the instant case. For the object of the provision in the instant bill of lading, like that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Paul Fire and Marine v. Delta Air Lines
...F.2d 462, 468 (6th Cir.1970); Thompson v. James G. McCarrick Co., 205 F.2d 897, 901 (5th Cir.1953); Minot Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry., 65 F.Supp. 293, 295 (D.Minn. 1946); Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Patton, 288 Ky. 450, 156 S.W.2d 474, 476 (1941); Adler Upholstery Fabrics ......
-
Reed v. Aaacon Auto Transport, Inc.
...can be based,' " Thompson v. James G. McCarrick Co., 205 F.2d 897, 901, (5th Cir. 1953) (quoting Minot Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis & St. L. Ry., 65 F.Supp. 293, 296 (D.Minn.1946). See also Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 197, 36 S.Ct. 541, 544, 60 L.Ed. 948 (191......
-
Thayer v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co.
...Co., supra, 225 F.2d 637, 639; Thompson v. James G. McCarrick Co., supra, 205 F.2d 897, 901; Minot Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 293, 296. It has been said that, 'The written notice which is to be considered in a 'practical way,' is sufficient if a carrie......
-
Norca Corp. v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc.
...in order to satisfy the notice of claim provision. Brewster v. Davis, 207 App.Div. 461, 202 N.Y.S. 574; Minot Beverage Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 293; Insurance Co. of N.A. v. Newtowne Mfg. Co., 1 Cir., 187 F.2d 675. A 'tracer' letter is insufficient. Dawlen Co......