Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Porter

• Decision Date: 16 February 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 181.)
• Parties: MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. v. PORTER et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

269 S.W. 47

MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. v. PORTER et al.

(No. 181.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

February 16, 1925.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Marvin Harris, Judge.

Action by E. W. Porter and others against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. B. Kinsworthy and R. E. Wiley, both of Little Rock, for appellant.

J. C. Marshall, of Little Rock, for appellees.

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellees brought suit against appellant in the circuit court of Pulaski county, Third division, to recover the value of 75 bales of cotton which they shipped from Earle, Ark., to Liverpool, England, on an export bill of lading, which was destroyed by fire while on the cars of appellant before its train left Earle.

Appellant interposed as a defense the following provision in the bill of lading:

"No carrier or party in possession of said property shall be liable for any loss thereof by causes beyond its control or by floods, or by fire, or by riots, strikes or stoppage of labor."

A jury was waived, and the case was tried before the court, who rendered a judgment against appellant for $10,999.70, from which is this appeal. The sole question involved on this appeal is the validity of the provision in the bill of lading which exempts the carrier from liability for loss of the cotton by fire. The case was submitted upon the following agreed statement of facts raising that issue:

"On October 21, 1920, the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company received from Porter, Weaver & Co., at Earle, Ark., 75 bales of cotton referred to in the petition, for shipment to Liverpool, England, and on said date issued to said shippers an export bill of lading, an exact copy of which is attached and made part thereof, consigning said shipment to shipper's order, Liverpool, England; that after the execution of said bill of lading, and before said cotton had been removed by the carrier from Earle, Ark., and while same was on the cars of defendant, same was destroyed by a fire originating at the compress at Earle, Ark., and not set by defendant; that the only issue in the case is whether, in view of the execution of the bill of lading with the condition hereinafter referred to in regard to loss by fire, the carrier is liable for such loss and damage by fire; that said export bill of lading under and pursuant to which this shipment was made, provided that the carrier should not be liable for loss of said cotton occasioned by fire; that claim for the loss in question was timely filed and declined by the carrier, and suit thereafter was timely filed for said loss."

The provision in the bill of lading exempting appellant from liability on account of fire is a limitation upon appellant's commonlaw liability and is void under section 843 of Crawford & Moses' Digest if the shipment was controlled by the laws of the state.

Appellant contends that the shipment was governed by the Cummins Amendment of 1915 and 1916 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8592, 8604a) to the Carmack Amendment, because the Cummins Amendment evidenced an intention on the part of Congress to occupy the field of regulating foreign commerce, just as the Carmack Amendment evidenced its intention to enter the field of regulating interstate commerce. Congress has exclusive power to regulate both interstate and foreign commerce, and when it has entered upon the field of regulating either, and does regulate either, the effect is that the regulatory acts of Congress upon the subject will supersede state statutes relating thereto, and all interstate and foreign shipments will be governed by federal legislation and the common-law rules as applied in the federal courts. C. N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 327, 36 S. Ct. 555, 60 L. Ed. 1022, L. R. A....