Mt. Arbor Nurseries v. American Ry. Express Co., No. 19773.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtBennick
Citation300 S.W. 1051
PartiesMT. ARBOR NURSERIES v. AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO.
Docket NumberNo. 19773.
Decision Date10 January 1928
300 S.W. 1051
MT. ARBOR NURSERIES
v.
AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO.
No. 19773.
St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.
January 10, 1928.

Appeal from Louisiana Court of Common Pleas; E. B. Woolfolk, Judge.

Action by the Mt. Arbor Nurseries against the American Railway Express Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Hostetter & Haley, of Bowling Green, for appellant.

Ras Pearson and F. D. Wilkins, both of Louisiana, Mo., for respondent.

BENNICK, C.


This action was instituted by plaintiff, the consignor, to recover from defendant the sum of $212, the alleged value of an interstate shipment of merchandise which the latter failed and neglected to deliver to the consignee. A jury was waived by the parties, and the cause tried before the court alone, resulting in a finding and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the full amount sued for, from which defendant has duly appealed.

Suffice it to say of the pleadings that they are all in conventional form and are immaterial upon the issue here presented, save for the allegation in the answer that the claim referred to in plaintiff's petition was not filed with defendant within 6 months and 15 days after the date of the shipment mentioned, and was therefore barred.

The evidence disclosed that the shipment in question was made on January 25, 1923, from Shenandoah, Iowa, to a customer of plaintiff company in Kittrell, N. C., and that a period of from 5 to 10 days would have been a reasonable time for the delivery of same to the consignee. The court specifically found that no delivery of the shipment was made by defendant, but that the same was lost in transit, and that plaintiff did not give defendant written notice of its claim within the period of 6 months and 15 days.

The law of the case, as declared by the lower court in its finding, was that defendant

300 S.W. 1052

having received the merchandise for shipment to its destination, having issued its receipt and bill of lading therefor, and having neglected and failed to make delivery for the reason that the merchandise was lost in transit, became liable to the plaintiff for the reasonable value thereof; and that the loss and damage herein sued for did not fall within the classification of claims which must be made in writing to the carrier within 6 months and 15 days after the date of shipment as a condition precedent to recovery, but that this class of loss was excepted from said requirement.

As the case comes to us, the sole question for our determination is whether plaintiff's right to recover for the loss incurred by reason of the nondelivery of the shipment in question may be made to depend upon the timely filing by it of a claim in writing, as required by the provisions of the bill of lading in the event of "failure to make delivery," or whether the facts of this case bring it within that class of claims as to which no notice is required.

Section 7 of the uniform express receipt, in effect at the time of shipment, and issued by defendant to plaintiff, reads as follows:

"Except where the loss, damage, or injury complained of is due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence, as conditions precedent to recovery claims must be made in writing to the originating or delivering carriers within six months after delivery of the property, or, in case of failure to make delivery, then within six months and fifteen days after date of shipment; and suits for loss, damage, or delay shall be instituted only within two years and one day after the date when notice in writing is given by the carrier to the claimant that the carrier has disallowed the claim or any part or parts thereof."

It will be observed that the language employed in the above receipt with reference to the classes of claims as to which the giving of notice is not required was taken almost bodily from the text of certain provisos of the Cummins Amendment (Act of March 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1196, 1197, e. 176 [49 USCA § 20, par....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co., No. 54709
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1970
    ...221; B. A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Cir., 295 F.2d 627; Mt. Arbor Nurseries v. American Ry. Express Co., 221 Mo.App. 241, 300 S.W. 1051; Cunningham v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., Mo.App., 219 S.W. 1003; Banaka v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 193 Mo.App. 345, 186 S.W. 7; Johnson v. Misso......
  • Wair v. American Car & Foundry Co., No. 20102.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 10, 1928
    ...the case materially affecting the merits of the action, the commissioner recommends that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed. 300 S.W. 1051 PER The foregoing opinion of BENNICK, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed. ......
  • Vaughn & Vaughn v. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. Co., No. 19330.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 9, 1939
    ...law and federal decisions." The St. Louis Court of Appeals, in Mt. Arbor Nurseries v. American Ry. Express Co., 221 Mo.App. 241, 300 S.W. 1051, loc. cit. 1052, held that a misdelivery, or delivery to a wrong party, and a non-delivery, or total failure to deliver or account for the good......
3 cases
  • Pitman Mfg. Co. v. Centropolis Transfer Co., No. 54709
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1970
    ...221; B. A. Walterman Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 6 Cir., 295 F.2d 627; Mt. Arbor Nurseries v. American Ry. Express Co., 221 Mo.App. 241, 300 S.W. 1051; Cunningham v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., Mo.App., 219 S.W. 1003; Banaka v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 193 Mo.App. 345, 186 S.W. 7; Johnson v. Misso......
  • Wair v. American Car & Foundry Co., No. 20102.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 10, 1928
    ...the case materially affecting the merits of the action, the commissioner recommends that the judgment of the circuit court be affirmed. 300 S.W. 1051 PER The foregoing opinion of BENNICK, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed. ......
  • Vaughn & Vaughn v. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. Co., No. 19330.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 9, 1939
    ...federal law and federal decisions." The St. Louis Court of Appeals, in Mt. Arbor Nurseries v. American Ry. Express Co., 221 Mo.App. 241, 300 S.W. 1051, loc. cit. 1052, held that a misdelivery, or delivery to a wrong party, and a non-delivery, or total failure to deliver or account for the g......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT