R. P. Hazzard Co. v. Me. Cent. R. Co.

CourtMaine Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCORNISH, C. J.
Citation116 A. 258
PartiesR. P. HAZZARD CO. v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
Decision Date13 March 1922
116 A. 258

R. P. HAZZARD CO.
v.
MAINE CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 13, 1922.


Report from Superior Court, Kennebec County, at Law.

Action by the R. P. Hazzard Company against the Maine Central Railroad Company. On report. Judgment for defendant.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK, MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.

George W. Heselton, of Gardiner, for plaintiff.

Carroll N. Perkins, of Waterville, for defendant.

CORNISH, C. J. This action is for the nondelivery of a portion of an interstate shipment of goods, under the provisions of the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, U. S. Comp. St. 1916, vol. 8 § 8604a, the defendant being the initial carrier.

116 A. 259

The facts, which are not in dispute, may be thus stated: On May 13, 1918, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant at Gardiner, Me., 25 cases of shoes consigned to F. L. Moore & Co., of Boston, Mass., forwarding agents, 14 cases being intended for reshipment to the Beck Shoe Company of New York City, and being plainly stenciled with the name and address of the last-named company. The shipment arrived in Boston on May, 15, 1918, at 10:45 a. m., having been en route two days, but it was 2 cases short, only 12 of the 14 Beck Shoe Company cases being delivered. The consignee receipted for the 12 cases only. The missing goods were never delivered, and no reason is disclosed for such nondelivery. On November 25, 1918, the plaintiff was advised of the shortage by the Beck Shoe Company. The attention of the defendant's station agent at Gardiner was called to the fact by the plaintiff on the nest day, November 26, and on November 27 the plaintiff claims to have sent the following letter to the defendant at Gardiner:

"Referring to our shipment of May 12th of 14 cases shoes numbers 3683/84 and 8774/8785 inclusive to the Beck Shoe Co., New York, care of F. L. Moore & Co. that Mr. Lasalle had up with you yesterday relative to there being two eases short, numbers 8778 and 8780.

"We trust you can locate the same at once with wire tracer as suggested."

On December 14, 1918, a claim was presented to the defendant in the form of an invoice for the two missing cases, giving their value to be $141, and stating that this shipment of May 13 was short that amount on arrival at Boston.

The shipment was under a bill of lading of the uniform type, and contained the following stipulation and condition:

"Section 3. * * * As conditions precedent to recovery claims must be made in writing to the originating or delivering carrier within six months after delivery of the property * * * or, in case of failure to make delivery, then within six months * * * after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed."

The defense is that written claim of loss was not made to the carrier within the prescribed time, and therefore the action cannot be maintained.

1. The validity of this stipulation in the bill of lading has been settled by the federal court. Georgia F. & A. Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. 541, 60 L. Ed. 948, St. Louis, etc., Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. Ed. 917.

2. Written claim within the meaning of this stipulation was not made upon the company until December 14, 1918.

The letter of November 27, assuming that it was sent and received as the plaintiff contends, did not constitute a claim, and did not purport to make demand for compensation. It was simply an expression of hope that the defendant would be able to locate the goods by means of a wire tracer as suggested in the interview on the preceding day. It stated a desire to have the goods themselves, and not the value...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin, No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Abril 1931
    ...business, in the light of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transaction. Hazzard Co. v. Railroad Co., 121 Me. 199, 202-203, 116 A. 258. Compare First Nat. Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C.C.A.) 273 F. 105, 107, 108. A demurrer to the evidence must be tested by the sa......
  • Strickland Transp. Co. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 16 Marzo 1970
    ...This character of request has been held not to amount to a claim. R. P. Hazzard Co. v. Maine [224 Tenn. 137] Cent. R. Co., 121 Me. 199, 116 A. 258 (1922); Bronstein v. Payne, 138 Md. 116, 113 A. 648 (1921); Fisk Rubber Co. of New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., 240 Mass. 40, 132 N.E. 714 (......
  • United Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ry. Exp. Agency, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 2 Noviembre 1948
    ...Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 212. But the weight of authority appears to be to the contrary. R. P. Hazzard Co. v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 121 Me. 199, 116 A. 258;Bronstein v. Payne, 138 Md. 116, 113 A. 648;A. Russo & Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 39;Kusin v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railw......
  • Cohen v. Southern Ry. Co., No. 22428.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1934
    ...business, in the light of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transaction. Hazzard Co. v. Railroad Co., 121 Me. 199, 202, 203, 116 A. 258. Compare First National Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C. C. A.) 273 F. 105, 107, 108.’ The same question was before this court in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Chesapeake Ry Co v. Martin, No. 155
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Abril 1931
    ...business, in the light of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transaction. Hazzard Co. v. Railroad Co., 121 Me. 199, 202-203, 116 A. 258. Compare First Nat. Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C.C.A.) 273 F. 105, 107, 108. A demurrer to the evidence must be tested by the sa......
  • Strickland Transp. Co. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • 16 Marzo 1970
    ...This character of request has been held not to amount to a claim. R. P. Hazzard Co. v. Maine [224 Tenn. 137] Cent. R. Co., 121 Me. 199, 116 A. 258 (1922); Bronstein v. Payne, 138 Md. 116, 113 A. 648 (1921); Fisk Rubber Co. of New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., 240 Mass. 40, 132 N.E. 714 (......
  • United Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Ry. Exp. Agency, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • 2 Noviembre 1948
    ...Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 212. But the weight of authority appears to be to the contrary. R. P. Hazzard Co. v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 121 Me. 199, 116 A. 258;Bronstein v. Payne, 138 Md. 116, 113 A. 648;A. Russo & Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 40 F.2d 39;Kusin v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railw......
  • Cohen v. Southern Ry. Co., No. 22428.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1934
    ...business, in the light of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transaction. Hazzard Co. v. Railroad Co., 121 Me. 199, 202, 203, 116 A. 258. Compare First National Bank v. Pipe & Contractors' Supply Co. (C. C. A.) 273 F. 105, 107, 108.’ The same question was before this court in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT