Ortt v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 February 1887
• Citation: 36 Minn. 396
• Parties: PETER ORTT <I>vs.</I> MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 396

36 Minn. 396

PETER ORTT vs. MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 4, 1887.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Redwood county, Webber, J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict for plaintiff.

J. D. Springer, for appellant.

E. St. Julien Cox, for respondent.

DICKINSON, J.

This action is for the recovery of damages for deterioration in the value of several cars of live-stock shipped by the plaintiff over the defendant's road, and destined for Chicago. The injury complained of was caused by delays of the cars while on the way, and after they had passed Albert Lea, in this state. At the time of the shipment of two of the car-loads, (from Minneapolis,) a printed blank contract was filled out in writing, and signed by the plaintiff, and by an agent of the defendant. This contract, so far as necessary to be here stated, was as follows, the words here italicized being written in the printed blank:

                            "MINNEAPOLIS & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY
                                      "Minneapolis Station, March 26, 1884
                "Received of Peter Ortt
                 "Two . . . . . Cars Live-stock as per margin, to be delivered at
                  "Consigned to . . . . . . . . Station, at special rates, being
                   "Tomlinson . . . . . Dollars per car for Horses and Mules
                    "Berkhart & Co. . . . . . . . . . . for Cattle or Hogs
                     "Chicago, Ill. . . . . . . . . . for Sheep
                

* * * * * * * *

"It is also agreed that, where stock shall pass over more than one road to reach its destination, the company upon whose road any accident, loss, or damage may occur, shall alone be liable therefor, and no suit shall be brought, or claim against any other company forming a part of the route, for such loss or damage."

Evidence was introduced upon the trial, going to prove that the defendant's line of road did not extend beyond Albert Lea, and that at that point freight consigned to Chicago was transferred to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company. Upon the trial of the cause the court instructed the jury that this was a contract on the part of the defendant to transport the stock to Chicago. The court further instructed the jury, in substance, that, if they found that the defendant received the property for transportation to Chicago, (as they must have found under the instructions above referred to,) its liability was not lessened in any manner, under the issues in this case, by the fact that it was transported over other connecting lines. In effect, the court thus declared that the express agreement embodied in the contract, and above recited, in terms restricting responsibility to that one of several carriers whose acts or omissions caused the injury, was of no effect to limit the liability of the defendant for injuries caused by another carrier.

We think that there was error in these instructions. The prevailing rule of law in this country is that a common carrier receiving goods to be transported over several lines, including his own, is not responsible for the negligence of other carriers in the route beyond his own line, unless he has specially contracted to transport the property to its...