Pennington v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1917
• Docket Number: No. 10970.,10970.
• Citation: 115 N.E. 170,277 Ill. 39
• Parties: PENNINGTON v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

277 Ill. 39

115 N.E. 170

PENNINGTON

v.GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RY. CO.

No. 10970.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1917.

Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Error to Municipal Court of Chicago; James C. Martin, Judge.

Action by F. C. Pennington against the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Court (199 Ill. App. 479), reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the municipal court, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded to Appellate Court.

Walter H. Eckert, of Chicago, for appellant.

Loyal L. Smith, of Chicago, for appellee.

DUNCAN, J.

This appeal was taken for a review of the judgment of the Appellate Court for the First District, reversing a judgment of the municipal court of Chicago in favor of appellant, F. C. Pennington, for the use of I. V. Edgerton, and against the Grand Trunk Western Railway Company, appellee, for the sum of $424.95. Appellant's amended statement of claim sets up two causes of action: (1) The violation by appellee of an oral agreement to ship a car of poultry, No. 739, from Imlay City, Mich., on its train No. 90, on September 12, 1909, whereby it failed to deliver the car in time for the New York market, so that the produce might be sold before the Jewish holidays began in that month; (2) for damages sustained by reason of appellee's careless and negligent failure to transport said car of poultry from Imlay City to destination within the time usually and ordinarily required for like shipments, whereby appellant was deprived of a sale for which the car was shipped, and was compelled to hold the same until the next market day. An itemized statement of loss accompanied the statement of claim, as follows: $37.50 for extra feed; $30 for extra time and expense of the man in charge; $129.15 for shrinkage of poultry; $208.98 for decline in market on hens; $18.32 decline on ‘springs'; and $1 for demurrage on car. Appellee set forth in its affidavit of defense that it had a good defense upon the merits to the whole of appellant's demand; that it did not agree to transport the said car of poultry, and did not carelessly or negligently fail to transport said car within the time usually and ordinarily required for like shipments, as alleged in the statement of claim; and that said damages, if any, are not chargeable in any way to appellee. Upon the issues thus joined the municipal court found against appellee and rendered judgment for appellant. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the municipal court and granted a certificate of importance, and the appeal to this court was perfected.

The evidence discloses that the shipment in question originated at Mt. Pleasant, Mich., on the line of the Ann Arbor Railroad Company, the initial carrier, and that it issued its through bill of lading to New York City. The Ann Arbor Railroad Company hauled the shipment to Imlay City, Mich., and there delivered it to appellee, and appellee transported it to Black Rock, N. Y., where it delivered it to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railway Company, which transported it to destination. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment solely on the ground that under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act the initial carrier only is liable, and that the Ann Arbor Railroad Company was the initial carrier. In its opinion it holds that the lower court erred in refusing the proposition of law submitted to it by appellee, that under the Carmack Amendment the remedy of a shipper for damage to property delivered to an initial carrier, which issues a through bill of lading, is against the initial carrier, alone, and not against the connecting carrier. The closing paragraph of the Appellate Court's opinion reads as follows:

‘Other matters of defense are presented to us, some of which are not without merit, but in view of what we have heretofore said it is unnecessary to discuss them. We hold that the decision in Looney v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., 271 Ill. 538 , is decisive against the claim of the plaintiff, and there can be no recovery against this defendant. Therefore, the judgment is reversed without remanding.’

It is made clear by the opinion of the Appellate Court that its holding, in substance, is that by reason of the Carmack Amendment no suit can be maintained against a connecting carrier in an interstate shipment-i. e., that no such suit can be maintained against any carrier in an interstate shipment for damage by reason of its own negligence unless that carrier happens to be the initial carrier. This is clearly not the law. It is true that the Carmack Amendment makes the initial carrier liable to the lawful holder of the bill of lading for any loss, damage, or injury to property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered, or over whose lines such property may pass. It is also true that under that amendment no other connecting carrier is made liable for such loss or injury caused by any other carrier...