Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company v. Harriman Brothers, No. 121
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Lurton |
| Citation | 227 U.S. 657,33 S.Ct. 397,57 L.Ed. 690 |
| Parties | MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. HARRIMAN BROTHERS |
| Docket Number | No. 121 |
| Decision Date | 10 March 1913 |
v.
HARRIMAN BROTHERS.
Page 658
Messrs. Joseph M. Bryson, Cecil H. smith, and Alex. S. Coke for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 658-662 intentionally omitted]
Page 662
Messrs. William M. Williams and J. A. L. Wolfe for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 662-664 intentionally omitted]
Page 664
Mr. Justice Lurton delivered the opinion of the court:
This was an action in a state court of Texas by a shipper of cattle, under a special live-stock transportation contract for a shipment from a point in Missouri to a point in Oklahoma, to recover the value of cattle killed by a negligent derailment occurring in the former state. The shipment consisted of four bulls and thirteen cows, claimed to have been very valuable 'show cattle.' They were all killed, and plaintiffs recovered their full value, $10,640, and this judgment was affirmed by the court below.
As the transaction was an interstate shipment, the case comes here upon questions which involved the validity of certain provisions in the contract of shipment when tested by the 20th section of the act to regulate commerce [24 Stat. at L. 386, chap. 104], as amended by the act of June 29, 1906 [34 Stat. at L. 593, chap. 3591, § 7 U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1304].
Aside from the question of negligence, which we assume to be closed by the verdict and judgment in the state court, the defenses pressed here are, first, that the limitation of value in case of loss or damage to $30 for each bull and $20 for each cow was a valid declaration of the valuation upon which the rate was based; and, second, that the action was not brought within ninety days after damages sustained, both being stipulations found in the shipping contract.
Those provisions in the contract which directly relate to the questions stated are as follows:
The title at the head of the contract is,—
Page 665
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE STOCK.
NOTICE.
'This company has two rates on live stock.'
Then follows a paragraph in these words:
'Ordinary live stock transported under this special contract is accepted and hauled at rate named below at owner's risk, as per conditions herein set forth, with the distinct understanding that said rate is a special rate, which is hereby agreed to, accepted, and understood to be at less than published tariff rate applying thereon when transported at carrier's risk.
'All kinds of live stock, carrier's risk, will be taken under the provisions and at rates provided for by existing tariffs and classification.'
Then follows the contract described as 'Special Live Stock Contract No. 4. Executed at Pilot Grove Station, 1-30-1907.'
Passing over a number of provisions concerning the agreement upon the part of the carrier, and a number of things which the shipper assumes to do, we come to § 8, which is in these words:
'8. The carrier does not ship live stock or emigrant outfit under this contract, or at the rate hereon given, upon which its liability in case of any loss or injury shall exceed the following prices per head:
Each horse (gelding, mare, stallion,
mule, or jack).............................. $100
Each pony or range horse....................... 30
Each ox, steer, or bull........................ 30
Each cow....................................... 20
Each calf or hog................................ 7
Each sheep or goat.............................. 2
'Emigrant outfit (not live stock) consisting of emigrant movables, household goods, second-hand farm
Page 666
machinery, etc., when loaded with live stock, as per classification at valuation not to exceed $5 per 100 pounds in case of loss or damage, and said shipper represents and agrees that his said live stock or emigrant outfit do not exceed in value those prices, and in case of any loss or damage thereto, by carrier's negligent transportation or handling of said cars as aforesaid, it is mutually agreed, in consideration of the rate named, and which is less than the rate applying on shipments at carrier's risk, the shipper shall be entitled to recover only actual damages, but in no instance more than the stipulated valuation shown above.'
The provision of the published tariff sheet referred to in the contract is set out in the margin, preceded by the offer of counsel to file it in evidence. By a clause in the 9th
Mr. Head: We offer the following portions of I.C.C. tariff No. A- 1636, M.K. & T. Local Distance Tariff No. 2548, applying on classes and commodities:
Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railway Co.
The 'Katy' Route.
Local Distance Tariff No. 2548.
(Cancels No. 737.)
Applying on classes and commodities between stations on the Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Ry. as follows:
Between stations in
Indian territory
Missouri or Kansas
Missouri or Kansas
And stations in
Oklahoma territory
Indiana territory
Oklahoma territory And locally between stations in the Indiana or Oklahoma territories.
Rates in Cents Per 100 lbs. Cattle. (See Rule 3.)
Distance. Commodities. 380 miles and over 370. . . .
Carloads. 26 1/2
Rule 3.
Live stock—Continued.
Limitation of liability.—Rates provided on live stock will apply only on shipments made at owner's risk, with limitation of liability on the part of the railroad company as common carrier under the terms and conditions of the current live stock contract provided by this company, the contract to be first duly executed in manner and form provided therein.
120 per cent of the rates named in this tariff will be charged on shipments made without limitations of carrier's liability at common law, and under this status, shippers will have the choice of executing and accepting contracts for shipments of live stock with or without limitation of liability, the rates to be made as provided for herein.
Page 667
section of the contract under which the cattle were shipped, it is stipulated that 'no suit shall be brought against any carrier, and only against the carrier on whose lines the injuries occur, after the lapse of ninety days from the happening thereof, any statute or limitation to the contrary notwithstanding.'
In respect of the two stipulations just referred to, the trial judge charged the jury as follows:
'The contract for shipment in this case contains, among other things, a stipulation that suit for any damages growing out of this shipment must be commenced within ninety days. You are instructed that such stipulation is void and not binding upon the plaintiffs herein.
'Said contract also contains a stipulation to the effect that if the cattle in the shipment are lost or killed, that their owners can only recover a certain fixed amount, which amount is named in said contract. You are instructed that such stipulation is void and not binding upon plaintiffs in this case, and if you should find for plaintiffs, you will fix the amount of their damages under instructions hereinafter given you.'
This charge was approved upon appeal and the judgment affirmed. The ground upon which the charge in respect to the limitation of recovery in case of loss was based was, first, that every such contract, where the loss was due to negligence, was null and void under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Badgett v. Federal Express Corp., No. 1:04 CV 220.
...may agree to a limitations period shorter than that provided by state law. See, e.g., Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Harriman Bros., 227 U.S. 657, 673, 33 S.Ct. 397, 401, 57 L.Ed. 690 (1913). The general rule has been stated, in the absence of a controlling statute to the contrary, a prov......
-
Donovan v. Sells Fargo & Co., No. 16961.
...257; Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173, 34 Sup. Ct. 556, 58 L. Ed. 901; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 34 Sup. Ct. 380, 58 L. Ed. 703; Chicago, R. & P. R. Co. v.......
-
Allen v. United States, Civ. No. C 79-0515.
...Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson, 325 U.S. 304, 314 65 S.Ct. 1137, 1142, 89 L.Ed. 1628 (1945); Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U.S. 657, 672 33 S.Ct. 397, 401, 57 L.Ed. 690 (1913); Bell v. Morrison, 26 U.S. 1 Pet. 351, 360 7 L.Ed. 174 United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117......
-
Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Pacific Market Co., 957
...S. F. R. R. Co. v. Wynn, 153 P. 1156; St. Louis & S. F. R. R. Co. v. Zickafoose, 39 Okla. 302, 135 P. 406; M. K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U.S. 657; K. C. S. Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491.) The Carmack Amendment to the Hepburn Act, (34 Stats......
-
Badgett v. Federal Express Corp., No. 1:04 CV 220.
...may agree to a limitations period shorter than that provided by state law. See, e.g., Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Harriman Bros., 227 U.S. 657, 673, 33 S.Ct. 397, 401, 57 L.Ed. 690 (1913). The general rule has been stated, in the absence of a controlling statute to the contrary, a prov......
-
Donovan v. Sells Fargo & Co., No. 16961.
...257; Atchison, etc., Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. 173, 34 Sup. Ct. 556, 58 L. Ed. 901; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 34 Sup. Ct. 380, 58 L. Ed. 703; Chicago, R. & P. R. Co. v.......
-
White v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, No. 06-1285.
...action is not too remote in time from the events giving rise to the plaintiff's claim. See Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. Harriman Bros., 227 U.S. 657, 672, 33 S.Ct. 397, 57 L.Ed. 690 (1913) (explaining that the purpose of a limitations period is to avoid a loss of evidence as the result of th......
-
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 12–729.
...from stipulating for a shorter period within which to assert their respective claims”); see also Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U.S. 657, 672–673, 33 S.Ct. 397, 57 L.Ed. 690 (1913) (citing examples). If parties are permitted to contract around a default statute of limitations, it ......