Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Tupelo Furniture Mfg. Co

• Decision Date: 27 January 1890
• Citation: 7 So. 279,67 Miss. 35
• Parties: MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. v. TUPELO FURNITURE MFG. CO
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

7 So. 279

67 Miss. 35

MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. v. TUPELO FURNITURE MFG. CO

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 27, 1890

October 1889

FROM the circuit court of Lee county, HON. LOCK E. HOUSTON, Judge.

The car-load of machinery in question was shipped from Grand Rapids, Michigan, to Tupelo, Mississippi. The proof shows that the machinery was delivered in good order to the Chicago & Western Michigan R. R. Co. at the place of shipment, and after being carried over that and other lines, was received by the appellant, the Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co., at St. Louis and by it was transported to Tupelo, Miss., its destination. When the machinery was delivered by the last-named company to the appellee it was found to be damaged, and parts of the machinery were broken and displaced. Appellee, being unable to locate where the injury occurred, brought this suit against the Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. to recover the damages sustained.

The consignors testified that the machinery was properly packed in the car.

The defendant introduced the evidence of its several conductors who had charge between St. Louis and Tupelo of the trains that hauled the car containing the machinery, and they testified that the car was conveyed in the usual way all along the route while under their supervision, but they admit that it was handled by other employes of the said company at the switch-yards in Cairo, Ill., and in Jackson, Tenn., and they know nothing of how it was treated by them. The car was sealed by the Chicago & Western Michigan R. R. Co., and when delivered at Tupelo the seal was unbroken, and the evidence seems to show that the injury occurred from a shock from the outside of the car.

For the plaintiff the court gave among others the following charges:--

1. "The court charges the jury for the plaintiff that the liability of the defendant, the M. & O. R. R. Co., attached when the machinery passed with its assent into its possession, and even if the goods were defectively packed and the M. & O. R. R. received them in that condition without exercising its right of refusal, it is liable for whatever damage the machinery had received, unless it can show by direct and satisfactory evidence that the damage did not occur upon its line.

2. "The M. & O. R. R. is a common carrier and therefore an insurer of property carried, and upon it rests the duty of seeing that the goods shipped are properly packed in suitable conveyances, and if by its failure and neglect to do this the goods shipped are damaged, it becomes liable to the owner thereof, the Tupelo Furniture Manufacturing Company, for whatever damage the goods sustain."

The defendant asked several instructions to the effect that plaintiff could not recover unless it showed that the injury occurred on the line of defendant's road, but these were refused by the court.

Plaintiff had judgment, and after motion for new trial overruled defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

John A Blair, for appellant.

This court is called on for the first time to pass upon the question whether the last of several connecting carriers is liable for goods delivered by it in a damaged condition where the only evidence beside the fact of damage is that they were shipped in good order.

That it is not so liable, see Marquette, etc., R. R. Co. v Kirkwood, 45 Mich. 51, reported in 72 Am. Dec. 246; Knight v. R. R. Co., 13 R. I. 572. The presumption against the last...