Railway Express Agency v. Smith

Decision Date10 December 1953
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 3601.
Citation116 F. Supp. 609
CourtU.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
PartiesRAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY v. SMITH.

McKay & McKay, Columbia, S. C., for plaintiff.

Robinson, Robinson & Dreher, Columbia, S. C., for defendant.

WYCHE, District Judge.

In this case the plaintiff brought suit to recover express charges on a shipment of peaches from Columbia, S. C., to Baltimore, Maryland, in the month of July, 1952. The complaint alleged the refusal of the Baltimore consignee to accept delivery, necessitating a forced sale by plaintiff of this perishable commodity, netting the sum of $55, and leaving a balance due on the express charges in the amount of $184.09.

In his answer defendant admitted the shipment but alleged that plaintiff had delayed the shipment en route to the consignee to such an extent that the market was closed by the time the peaches reached Baltimore, although plaintiff had assured defendant the shipment would reach the consignee in Baltimore in ample time for the early morning market of July 3, 1953. Defendant counterclaimed for the value of the peaches, $650, less proper freight charges.

At the hearing before me the testimony of plaintiff's Columbia agent and of the defendant was taken. The deposition of the Baltimore consignee was read and placed in evidence, as were defendant's interrogatories to plaintiff and the answers thereto, the shipper's receipt, a Department of Agriculture bulletin showing the condition of the Baltimore peach market on July 3, 1952, and the pertinent I.C.C. rules as to express companies.

Based on the pleadings, testimony and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Findings of Fact

1. On July 1, 1952, the defendant, a peach grower of Lexington County, South Carolina, had arranged to ship, by motor truck under the control of the South Carolina Peach Growers' Association, some 250 half-bushel baskets of Golden Jubilee and Red Haven peaches to a Baltimore consignee for disposition on the early morning (twelve midnight to seven A.M.) market of July 3.

2. During the afternoon of July 1, defendant learned that the truck would be fully loaded before it reached his farm. He was advised to attempt shipment by railway express.

3. Defendant telephoned plaintiff's Columbia agent and was assured the peaches would leave Columbia on an early morning Seaboard Air Line train on July 2, arriving in Washington about 2:30 P.M. the same day, and that they would reach Baltimore later the same evening, in ample time for the early morning market of July 3.

4. Relying on this assurance defendant delivered the peaches to plaintiff's Columbia office at 10:00 P.M., July 1. The peaches were loaded on Seaboard train 8 at 3:04 A.M. July 2, in Columbia, and reached Washington at 2:25 P.M. July 2.

5. Although trains carrying express from Washington to Baltimore left Washington at 6:05 P.M. and at 11:25 P.M. on July 2, this shipment of peaches did not leave Washington until 6:00 A.M. July 3, on Baltimore & Ohio train 140.

6. The shipment arrived in Baltimore at 7:30 A.M. July 3 and was offered to the consignee at 10:15 A.M., at which time the consignee refused to accept delivery.

7. By the time the peaches were offered for delivery to the consignee, there were no buyers left on the Baltimore market, and the market was closed the following three days, July 4, 5, 6, 1952, therefore the shipment of peaches was practically worthless at the time of delivery; the actual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. H. Rouw Co.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 15 Septiembre 1954
    ...Co. v. Ewing Thomas Converting Co., 3 Cir., 292 F. 335; Bussey v. Memphis & Little Rock R. Co., C.C., 13 F. 330; Railway Express Agency v. Smith, D.C., 116 F.Supp. 609; Rio Grande & E. P. R. Co. v. T. A. Austin & Co., Tex.Com.App., 25 S.W.2d 306; Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.......
  • Condakes v. Southern Pacific Company, Civ. A. No. 67-965-J
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 3 Febrero 1969
    ...N. R. Co., supra, note 3; Janesville Live Stock & Shipping Co. v. Hines, 1920, 146 Minn. 260, 178 N.W. 739; see Railway Express Agency v. Smith, 1953, E.D.S.C., 116 F. Supp. 609. The defendant argues that the practical result of using schedules as evidence of what constitutes reasonable dis......
  • Southern Pacific Company v. Miller Abattoir Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 12 Enero 1972
    ...R.R. v. Musante-Phillips, Inc., 42 F.Supp. 340 (N.D.Cal.1941); Norton v. Shotmeyer, 72 F.Supp. 188 (D.N.J.1947); Railway Express Agency v. Smith, 116 F.Supp. 609 (E.D.S.C.1953); Reading Co. v. Commodity Credit Corp., 181 F.Supp. 359 (E.D.Pa.1960), rev'd on other grounds, 289 F.2d 744 (3rd C......
  • Cincis v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co.
    • United States
    • New York City Court
    • 17 Enero 1956
    ...Van Pelt, 268 U.S. 85, 45 S.Ct. 437, 69 LEd. 857; New York P. & N. R. R. Co. v. Peninsula Prod. Exchange, supra; Railway Express Agency, Inc., v. Smith, D.C., 116 F.Supp. 609; Ward v. New York C. R. R. Co., 47 N.Y. 29; Porter v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 217 App.Div. 49, 215 N.Y.S. 727; Seave......

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