Post & Woodruff v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1912
• Citation: 76 S.E. 45,138 Ga. 763
• Parties: POST & WOODRUFF v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

76 S.E. 45

138 Ga. 763

POST & WOODRUFF v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 5, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

It is not necessary for the decision of this case to determine generally whether section 7 of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. 595, c. 3591 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911 p. 1307]), prohibited absolutely any contract by an initial carrier limiting the common-law liability of such carrier either as an insurer, or for injury or loss resulting from negligence, or whether the purpose of such section of the act was to require the issuance of through bills of lading, and to prevent the limitation of liability of the initial carrier to a loss occurring on its own line. On this subject there are two lines of authority. See Adams Express Co. v Mellichamp, 138 Ga. 443, 75 S.E. 596; Hooker v Boston & Maine R. Co., 209 Mass. 598, 95 N.E. 948 Ann.Cas. 1912B, 669, and note; Travis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 79 N. J. Law, 83, 74 A. 444; Greenwald v. Weir, 130 A.D. 696, 115 N.Y.S. 311; In the Matter of Released Rates, 13 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 550, 552; Watkins on Shippers and Carriers, 267, § 201; Galveston, etc., R. Co. v. Wallace, 223 U.S. 481, 491, 492, 32 S.Ct. 205, 56 L.Ed. 516; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Grayson, 89 Ark. 154, 115 S.W. 933.

However this may be held, that section of the act does not prohibit an agreement providing a reasonable time within which the shipper shall present his claim, or give notice of claim for loss or damage, and that the carrier shall not be liable unless such notice is given or claim made within the prescribed time. Moore on Carriers, § 24, and citations; Houtz v. Union Pac. R. Co., 33 Utah 175, 93 P. 439, 17 L.R.A. (N. S.) 628, and note; Express Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264, 22 L.Ed. 556.

In Central R. Co. v. Hasselkus & Stewart, 91 Ga. 382 (2), 385, 17 S.E. 838, 44 Am.St.Rep. 37, it was held that such an agreement was so far a limitation upon the legal liability of the carrier as to fall within the provision of section 2726 of the Civil Code of 1910, and not to be binding upon the shipper by reason merely of notice or of an entry on receipts, but to require an express contract in order to be effectual. But it was not there held that such an express contract would be a limitation upon liability arising from negligence, so as to be contrary to public policy, nor would an agreement of the character mentioned, fixing a reasonable time within which notice of loss of goods or injury thereto should be given, be inhibited as contrary to the public policy of this state. Southern R. Co. v. Adams, 115 Ga. 705, 42 S.E. 35; Pennsylvania Co. v. Shearer, 75 Ohio St. 249, 79 N.E. 431, 116 Am.St.Rep. 730, 9 Ann.Cas. 15, and note; Hoye v. Penn. R. Co., 191 N.Y. 101, 83 N.E. 586, 17 L.R.A. (N. S.) 641, 14 Ann.Cas. 414, and note; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Calumet Stock Farm, 194 Ill. 9, 61 N.E. 1095, 88 Am.St.Rep. 68, and note on page 113.

Where a shipment of a car load of celery was made from Sanford, Fla., to Detroit, Mich., if a contract was made between the shipper and the carrier that "claims for loss or damage shall be made in writing to the agent at point of delivery promptly after arrival of the property, and if delayed for more than 30 days after the delivery of the property, or after due time for delivery thereof, no carrier hereunder shall be liable in any event," and if the celery was delivered in a damaged condition, the contract to make the claim for loss or damage to the agent at the point of delivery within 30 days cannot be declared as matter of law to be unreasonable, nothing further appearing on that subject than as above stated.

The shipment originated in Florida, and the goods were to be transported and delivered in Michigan. The suit was brought in Georgia, but it did not appear that any contract was either made or to be performed wholly or partly in this state. Neither the law of Florida, where the shipment began nor that of Michigan, the place of delivery, was pleaded or proved. Determining them on general common-law principles and...