Mires v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Citation: 114 S.W. 1052,134 Mo. App. 379
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: MIRES v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO.

114 S.W. 1052

134 Mo. App. 379

MIRES v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 15, 1908.

1. CARRIERS (§ 158) — FREIGHT—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY—VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT.

While a carrier cannot contract to exempt itself from liability for negligence in transporting property, a contract limiting liability to an agreed valuation will be sustained, if supported by a sufficient consideration.

2. CONTRACTS (§ 141)— CONSIDERATION IMPLIED.

Generally, a contract imports validity on its face, and therefore a valid consideration; nothing appearing to the contrary.

3. CARRIERS (§ 154) — FREIGHT — LIMITATION OF LIABILITY — VALIDITY OF CONTRACT.

Limitation of a carrier's liability in a contract to carry freight is void unless it appears from recitals in the contract or from other competent evidence that a reduced freight rate was given.

4. EVIDENCE (§ 419) — TESTIMONY TO SHOW CONSIDERATION—ADMISSIBILITY.

Parol evidence is admissible to show the true consideration for a carrier's contract to carry freight or to explain or contradict recitals of the contract touching the same.

5. CARRIERS (§ 62)—CONTRACTS—EFFECT.

In the absence of fraud or imposition, a patron of a railroad is bound by his contract, being required to ascertain its terms before executing it, and being bound, prima facie at least, by the recitals of fact against his interest contained therein.

6. CARRIERS (§ 163)—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY—REDUCED FREIGHT RATE—EVIDENCE.

A recital, in a contract to carry freight, showing the consideration to be a reduced freight rate, not overthrown by other competent evidence, is prima facie evidence of the fact and sufficient to sustain limitation of the carrier's liability for negligence.

7. CARRIERS (§ 154)—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY — REDUCED FREIGHT RATE — SHIPPER'S KNOWLEDGE OF RATES.

Where a contract to carry freight recites that, in consideration of a reduced freight rate, the carrier's liability shall be limited to a specified valuation, the shipper cannot show, in the absence of a showing of fraud or imposition, that he did not know that the carrier had a higher rate than that charged.

8. CARRIERS (§ 154) — FREIGHT—LIMITATION OF LIABILITY—CONSIDERATION—SUFFICIENCY — REDUCED RATE.

That a shipper received the benefit of a reduced freight rate applicable where the carrier's liability is limited supports a limited liability contract, regardless of a recital in the contract to that effect.

9. COMMERCE (§ 33) — "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" — WHAT CONSTITUTES.

A contract to carry freight between two points within a state constitutes "interstate commerce," where the carrier's line for some distance between the two points passes through another state.

10. CARRIERS (§ 30)—INTERSTATE COMMERCE —RATES.

A carrier's rate for carrying freight under an interstate contract is governed by its tariff sheets and schedule of rates published and on file with the interstate commerce commission.

11. CARRIERS (§ 30)—INTERSTATE COMMERCE —RATES—KNOWLEDGE PRESUMED.

Where a carrier has promulgated its rates under the interstate commerce law, and has complied with the statute by filing a copy of the schedule with the commission, deposited a copy with its agent, and posted copies in two conspicuous places in the depot, shippers are presumed to know the existence of the schedules and the rates contained therein.

12. CARRIERS (§ 30)—INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAW—FAILURE TO POST RATES—EFFECT.

That a carrier failed to post its schedules and tariff sheets in a depot, as required by the interstate commerce law, does not affect the validity of the rates promulgated, filed with the interstate commerce commission, and deposited with the station agent.

13. COURTS (§ 97)—UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—HIGHEST AUTHORITY ON FEDERAL STATUTES.

The federal Supreme Court is the highest authority on the interpretation of federal statutes.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dent County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by G. T. Mires against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

L. F. Parker and W. J. Orr, for appellant. Clark Dooley and Sherwood & Young, for respondent.

NORTONI, J.

In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover the value of seven jacks lost through the negligence of defendant while being transported by it in the capacity of common carrier. The plaintiff recovered, and defendant appeals. The defendant undertook to carry the animals from Mountain Grove, Mo., over its lines, partially through the state of Kansas, to Kansas City, Mo., and there safely deliver the same to a connecting carrier for transportation to Oaksdale, in the state of Washington. There were fifteen jacks and one horse in the shipment. The evidence tended to prove that, through the negligence of defendant, fire was communicated to and ignited certain combustible material used for bedding in the car containing the animals. The fire consumed the car and resulted in the destruction of seven of the jacks. Plaintiff sues for the value of the seven jacks destroyed, which is alleged to be $3,500. The jury returned a verdict for that amount.

There are numerous errors prejudicial to the defendant in the record. The court submitted the issues on inconsistent theories and materially invaded the rights of defendant in the admission of testimony and instructions given. To notice separately each of the just grounds for complaint on appeal would prolong the opinion to an unpardonable extent. By treating solely with the material facts established beyond controversy, the case may be properly disposed of without a separate discussion of the several errors appearing.

It appears plaintiff had been engaged for 30 years in shipping stock over the railroads. He testified that during those years he had probably read as many as 100 live stock contracts under which he shipped. On the date of the shipment in question, February 25, 1905, having loaded the animals in the car, plaintiff applied to defendant's agent at Mountain Grove to enter into a contract with him for their transportation to Kansas City. Immediately preceding defendant's printed form of live stock contract, and on the same sheet of paper therewith, the defendant has prepared a printed application for the use of its prospective patrons who desire to avail themselves of a lesser or reduced rate of freight in consideration of surrendering certain common-law rights against the carrier. Upon plaintiff proposing a contract with defendant covering the shipment involved, defendant's agent prepared the application referred to by filling in the blanks thereof, and the plaintiff executed the same by affixing his signature thereto. Completed, it appears as follows:

FRISCO

ST LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY.

READ THIS CONTRACT CAREFULLY, AS NUMEROUS CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE

NOTICE.

THIS COMPANY HAS TWO RATES ON LIVE STOCK.

Shippers of Live Stock will take notice that rates of freight, and the extent of liability of the Company, are governed by the valuations which they place thereon. Rates of freight are on file and will be shown by Agent on Application.

To the ST. LOUIS AND SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY:

The undersigned offers for shipment over your road 15 head of jacks from Mountain Grove to Kansas City, each head of the estimated weight of......pounds, and valued at One Hundred Dollars per head, and one head of horse from Mountain Grove to Kansas City, each head of the estimated weight of..... pounds, and valued at One Hundred Dollars per head, which valuation is named by me for the purpose of securing a reduced rate of freight on this shipment; and I agree that in case of loss or damage to same said valuation so named shall be conclusive, should I make any claim for such loss or damage against any carrier over whose line the same may pass.

This application is an election on my part to avail myself of a reduced rate, by making this shipment under the following contract, limiting the liability of such carrier, instead of shipping the same

                at a higher rate without such limitations.                                    G. T. Mires
                Witness:                                                                    Owner or Shipper
                

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The St. Louis and San Francisco Railroad Company accepts this shipment and the above valuation as a basis for fixing the rate of freight thereon.

                                                      ST. LOUIS AND SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY
                                                                                By J. H. Livingston, Agent
                

NOTE. The rates of freight on Live Stock are fixed in view of the nature and extent of liability, assumed by the carrier, and all kinds of live stock shipped in car loads under a contract similar to the following, limiting the liability of the carrier, are taken at reduced rates; all kinds of live stock will be taken at carrier's risk if the shipper so elects, at rates provided by the existing tariffs, classifications, and under the provisions and conditions relating thereto; and in either event no agent of this Company has any power to bind it in any way, with regard to the shipment of live stock, except by written contract.

Defendant's agent, having accepted plaintiff's proposition as indicated on the application, proceeded to enter into a written contract with him providing for shipment of the animals mentioned from Mountain Grove to Kansas City, Mo. The consideration mentioned is $46.20 freight charges, which amount is recited in the contract to be a "special rate and less than the rate charged for shipments transported at the carrier's risk; in consideration of which reduced rate it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows," etc. The tenth stipulation of the contract recites that it is agreed...