Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Camper

• Decision Date: 09 May 1918
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 106
• Citation: 201 Ala. 581,78 So. 925
• Parties: NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. CAMPER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

78 So. 925

201 Ala. 581

NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. CAMPER.

8 Div. 106

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 9, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by F.O. Camper against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company for damages for failure to deliver stock. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Reversed and remanded.

Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellant.

John A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellee.

McCLELLAN J.

The complaint counts on the contract of carriage by a common carrier, and is not in tort, for the breach of a duty arising out of the contract of affreightment. The appellee (plaintiff) delivered to the appellant (defendant) 35 head of cattle to be transported from Hobbs Island, Ala., to Louisville, Ky. While the bill of lading issued to the shipper contained the station Nashville (presumably Tennessee, though the state is not given) at one place in specifying the destination of the shipment, yet it is plain from a view of the whole instrument that the writing in of the station Nashville was an error; that the bill was a through bill of lading, for interstate transportation from Hobbs Island, Ala., to Louisville, Ky.

The construction of this contract of affreightment was a matter for the court's decision, not the jury. Being an interstate shipment, the rights, liabilities, and remedies of the parties under the contract are governed alone by pertinent federal laws. Cin., etc., Ry. Co. v Rankin, 241 U.S. 319, 36 Sup.Ct. 555, 60 L.Ed. 1022 L.R.A. 1917A, 265. If otherwise entitled to recover, the provisions of the Carmack Amendment should be accorded appropriate effect in determining the liability of the carrier to the shipper. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v Wall, 241 U.S. 87, 91, 92, 36 Sup.Ct. 493, 60 L.Ed. 905; G.F. & A. Ry. v. Blish, 241 U.S. 190, 36 Sup.Ct 541, 60 L.Ed. 948. Stipulations in interstate bills of lading requiring notice of claim of damage and extinction of the right to recover therefor if the notice stipulated is not given are valid and effective, and if the notice of claim required by the bill of lading is not given the carrier is not liable therefor in any form of action. C. & O. Ry. Co. v. McLaughlin, 242 U.S. 142, 37 Sup.Ct. 40, 61 L.Ed. 207; St. L., etc., Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592, 37 Sup.Ct. 462, 61 L.Ed. 917. The provisions...