Oregon Short Line Railway Company v. Blyth
| Decision Date | 06 November 1911 |
| Docket Number | 647 |
| Citation | 19 Wyo. 410,118 P. 649 |
| Parties | OREGON SHORT LINE RAILWAY COMPANY v. BLYTH |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied January 5, 1912, Reported at: 19 Wyo. 410 at 423.
ERROR to the District Court, Uinta County; HON. DAVID H. CRAIG Judge.
The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Reversed.
P. L Williams, D. Worth Clark, H. E. Christmas and H. R. Christmas, for plaintiff in error.
Upon the facts Blyth, the owner of the goods, was bound by the acts of his agent, the Redman Van Storage Company. This is an action ex contractu, the plaintiff alleging as a basis of recovery a breach of the defendant's contract to safely carry the goods from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Evanston, Wyoming. The release in question is a part of that contract, and was signed by plaintiff's agent. It was advisedly entered into. Plaintiff's agent knew that to obtain a certain freight rate it would be necessary for this contract to be signed. Nothing was concealed, and both parties understood the legal effect and full import of the entire contract. The only question, therefore, is whether such a contract is contrary to law or public policy, so that a claim will declare it void and unenforceable. We submit that the contract was a valid one and bound the plaintiff. (1 Hutchinson on Carriers, (3rd Ed.) Sec. 426; R. R. Co. v. Patrick, 144 F. 632; Hill v. R. R. Co., (Wash.) 74 P. 1054; Windmiller v. R. R. Co., 101 P. 225; Atkinson v. N. Y. Trans. Co., (N. J.) 71 A. 278; Faulk v. R. R. Co., (S. C.) 64 S.E. 383; Townsend v. Wyatt, (Mo.) 113 S.W. 1161; Donlon v. R. R. Co., 151 Cal. 763; Coupland v. R. R. Co., 61 Conn. 531; R. R. Co. v. Murphey, 113 Ga. 514; Rosenfeld v. Ry. Co., 103 Ind. 121; Pac. Exp. Co. v. Foley, 46 Kan. 457; Hill v. R. R. Co., 144 Mass. 284; Graves v. Exp. Co., 108 Mich. 572; Adair v. R. R. Co., 53 Minn. 160; Murphy v. Exp. Co., 99 Minn. 230; Starnes v. R. R. Co., 91 Tenn. 516; R. R. Co. v. Payne, 86 Va. 481; Ullman v. Ry. Co., 112 Wis. 13; Larson v. R. R. Co., (Utah) 110 P. 983.) The contract was a reasonable one. The value of household goods is a very uncertain thing. They may or may not be of a greater value than $ 5 per hundred weight. However that may be, it appears that the barrels in which the goods were packed had nothing upon them to indicate what their contents were, and there was nothing by which the railroad company could know what the value was. (1 Hutchinson on Carriers, (3rd Ed.) Sec. 477.) The consideration for the contract was the reduced freight rate. Plaintiff himself, through his agent, declared the valuation. The bill of lading containing the release was sent to him, and he did not repudiate it, but expressly affirmed it by taking the goods which reached the destination and paying the reduced rate which had been obtained on account of the release. He cannot now repudiate the contract.
R. S. Spence, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff was in Evanston and his goods were in Salt Lake City. He engaged the services of the storage company to pack the goods and ship them to Evanston. Nothing was said as to how they were to be shipped. The freight was to be paid at destination. The storage company had no right to assume authority to make a contract with the carrier. The one who acted for the storage company stated that he signed the release on his own volition, without instructions from anyone, because it was his custom to do so. He cannot be held to have been the agent of Blyth. Agency was not proven, either expressly or impliedly. (Russell v. R. R. Co., 70 N. J. L. 808; R. R. Co. v. Hamlin, 42 Ill.App. 441; R. R. Co. v. Ashley, 67 F. 209.) A carrier of goods cannot limit the extent of its liability for negligence by an agreed valuation, in consideration of reduced rates, when the agreed valuation is greatly less than the real value, though the contents of the package or their value are not disclosed to the carrier. In an action to recover the loss of an article having no marked value, the measure of damages is the value to the plaintiff. (So. Exp. Co. v. Owens, 146 Ala. 412; Donalson v. Graham, 2 O. St. 131; 86 N.W. 10; 85 Am. St. 458; 18 A. 503; 15 Am. St. 672.) The liability of a common carrier is sometimes of a dual nature. (1) Loss by his own negligence or omission of duty. (2) Liability as an insurer. (R. R. Co. v. Little, 71 Ala. 611.) It is well settled that by special contract the carrier may limit his liability as an insurer. (146 Ala. 412; Steel v. Townsend, 79 Am. Dec. 49; Ry. Co. v. Hopko, 94 Am. Dec. 607; 23 Am. Dec. 578.) But the carrier can make no contract exempting him from liability for negligence. The carrier is held to that degree of diligence which all careful and prudent men take in their own affairs, and he is responsible for all loss arising from a neglect of that degree of diligence enjoined upon him by his public employment; and public policy forbids that he should be relieved by special agreement from that degree of diligence and fidelity which the law exacts in the discharge of his duties. The degree of diligence required of a common carrier is declared by law and is a matter over which he has no control.
BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE. POTTER, J., concurs. SCOTT, J., was not present at the oral argument, but participated in the consideration of the case and concurs in the decision.
This action was brought by the defendant in error, Charles P. Blyth, against the plaintiff in error, The Oregon Short Line Railway Company, a corporation, to recover the value of two barrels of chinaware which he alleged had been lost in shipment. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff below for $ 289.50, the value of the goods as found by the court. The railway company brings error.
The plaintiff alleged in his petition, after alleging that defendant was a common carrier from Salt Lake City, Utah, to Evanston, Wyoming, that The defendant answered, that at the time of the delivery of said goods to the company for shipment, the shipper entered into a written contract on behalf of the plaintiff, containing the terms and conditions on which the defendant undertook to transport the property, one of which was as follows:
That the shipper knew at the time that a higher rate was required for property of greater value than five dollars per hundred weight. That the defendant relying on the statement and agreement of the shipper that the property was of the value of five dollars per hundred weight and no more, and that the risk incurred in case of accident would be only five dollars per hundred weight, accepted said property for shipment upon said valuation, and at a rate based thereon. That plaintiff was estopped to claim that the property was of greater value than five dollars per hundred pounds and that the weight of the two barrels was four hundred pounds; and it offered to confess judgment for $ 20.00 and costs of suit.
For reply, plaintiff denied the allegations with respect to the contract, and averred that no one had authority to make any contract binding his property.
Two questions are presented in the case. 1. Did the storage company have authority to make the contract? 2. If so, was the contract valid?
The two barrels of chinaware not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oregon Short Line Railway Company v. Blyth
...COMPANY v. BLYTH No. 647Supreme Court of WyomingJanuary 5, 1912 19 Wyo. 410 at 423. Original Opinion of November 6, 1911, Reported at: 19 Wyo. 410. Rehearing R. S. Spence, for defendant in error. (On petition for rehearing.) The only attempt to prove agency was the evidence of the shipping ......
- Owen v. Saratoga and Encampment Railway Company