Rice & Lockwood Lumber Co. v. Boston & M.R.R.

Decision Date10 January 1941
Citation31 N.E.2d 219,308 Mass. 101
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
PartiesRICE & LOCKWOOD LUMBER CO. v. BOSTON & M. R. R.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Exceptions from Superior Court, Hampden County; Hammond, Judge.

Action of contract by the Rice & Lockwood Lumber Company against the Boston & Maine Railroad, for value of lots of oak flooring damaged in course of transportation. On defendant's exceptions after finding for plaintiff in the sum of $710.17.

Judgment ordered for defendant.

Argued before FIELD, C. J., and DONAHUE, QUA, COX, and RONAN, JJ.

H. E. Allen, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

R. W. Hall, of Boston, for defendant.

RONAN, Justice.

This is an action of contract to recover for three lots of oak flooring which were a part of a carload shipped on October 28, 1939, from Warren, Arkansas, to Malden in this Commonwealth ‘With stopover at Lowell, Mass. for partial unloading.’ This car also contained a fourth lot of flooring which the plaintiff had sole to the Russell Lumber Company in Lowell. The plaintiff wrote the defendant on November 1, 1939, to deliver the car upon its arrival at Lowell to the Russell Lumber Company (hereafter called the lumber company); it had requested the lumber company when it had removed its lot of lumber to notify the defendant, and the defendant could then forward the car to Malden. The defendant placed this car upon the private siding of the lumber company at ten o'clock on the morning of Saturday, November 4, 1939, along a lumber shed of that company. On that afternoon, before the car had been opened for unloading, it caught fire and the plaintiff's property was damaged. The judge, after finding that the loss was not due to the defendant's negligence, found for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the refusal of the judge to grant certain of its requests and to the granting of the plaintiff's requests.

The case was submitted upon a statement of agreed facts which contained all the material facts except as to what knowledge the plaintiff had of the existence of the private siding at the yard of the lumber company; and upon this point the statement recited that no official or employee of the plaintiff knew that the lumber company had such a siding or that lumber was continuously delivered there, excepting one of its sales agents, the extent of whose knowledge was to be proved at the trial. He testified that he knew that all shipments for the lumber company were delivered to a siding which skirted a shed of the lumber company and then extended back into its yard, but that before the damage to this car of lumber he did not know that it was a private siding or whether it served others beyond the yard of the lumber company. Whether the judge gave credence to this oral testimony and weighed it with the facts recited in the statement of agreed facts or whether he refused to accept this testimony or any part of it and decided the case upon the statement alone, the result is the same, because the statement alone or considered with the testimony is insufficient to warrant any finding other than that the side track of the lumber company was a proper place for the delivery of the car. The transportation of the car was an interstate shipment, 41 U.S.Sts. at Large, 474-479, U.S.C. (1934 Ed.) Title 49, § 1, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1, governed by the terms and conditions of a uniform straight bill of lading issued in accordance with 39 U.S.Sts. at Large, 539, U.S.C. (1934 Ed.) Title 49, § 82, 49 U.S.C.A. § 82, which authorized the plaintiff to divert the shipment to the lumber company. Clark v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad, 216 Ala. 637, 114 So. 295;Central of Georgia Railway v. Council, 163 Ga. 494, 136 S.E. 418, 61 A.L.R. 1304;Ryan v. Great Northern Railway, 90 Minn. 12, 95 N.W. 758;Terranova v. Southern Pacific Co., 206 App.Div. 64, 200 N.Y.S. 309;Virginia & S.W. Railroad v. Sutherland, 138 Tenn. 266, 197 S.W. 863, L.R.A.1918B, 77;Southern Produce Co. v. Norfolk Southern Railroad, 144 Va. 422, 132 S.E. 360. By virtue of the plaintiff's direction the defendant was justified in delivering the car to the lumber company as one lawfully entitled to its possession. 39 U.S.Sts. at Large, 540, U.S.C. (1934 Ed.) Title 49, § 89, 49 U.S.C.A. § 89. Pere Marquette Railway v. J. F. French & Co., 254 U.S. 538, 41 S.Ct. 195, 65 L.Ed. 391;Wilkinson & Carroll Cotton Co. v. Chicago, Memphis & Gulf Railroad, 6 Cir., 32 F.2d 553.

The plaintiff directed the defendant to deliver the car to the lumber company but it did not designate any particular place of delivery and the defendant was required to make delivery in the usual and customary manner. The usual place of delivery of cars consigned to a plant equipped with a side track which is used for the reception and shipment of cars to and from such a plant is upon such a siding. It is a matter of common knowledge that many industrial plants are equipped with side tracks for the reception and shipment of carloads of freight and that it is the general and universal practice of railroad corporations to deliver and accept cars upon such sidings. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. General Electric Co., 219 N.Y. 227, 114 N.E. 115, 1 A.L.R. 1417,United States v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., 301 U.S. 402, 57 S.Ct. 804, 81 L.Ed. 1186. It has been held that a railroad corporation is required to deliver cars upon such a siding provided it is within its switching area or its terminal limits, and that transportation ends when cars are placed upon the siding. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Porter, 220 Mass. 547, 108 N.E. 499;Batchelder & Snyder Co. v. Union Freight Railroad, 259 Mass. 368, 156 N.E. 698, 54 A.L.R. 616; Los Angeles Switching Case (Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.), 234 U.S. 294, 34 S.Ct. 814, 58 L.Ed. 1319;United States v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., 301 U.S. 402, 57 S.Ct. 804, 81 L.Ed. 1186;Banner Grain Co. v. Great Northern Railway, 119 Minn. 68, 137 N.W. 161, 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 678; New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. General Electric Co., 219 N.Y. 227, 114 N.E. 115, 1 A.L.R. 1417;Lee v. Erie Railroad, 173 App.Div. 75, 158 N.Y.S. 730.

The plaintiff does not contend that such a usage does not exist among carriers or that there is anything in the statement of agreed facts that tends to indicate that there is no such custom, but what the plaintiff contends is that, when it gave the order to deliver the car, it did not know that the lumber company was served with a siding and that, consequently, it did not intend that the car should be placed upon the siding rather than that the delivery should be made from the public delivery tracks of the carrier. If the plaintiff desired to have the delivery made at some place other than the siding it should have so directed the carrier. Its undisclosed intention could not bind the defendant. Marks v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange, 181 Mass. 251, 63 N.E. 410;Farnum v. Whitman, 187 Mass. 381, 73 N.E. 473. Its ignorance as to the existence of the siding did not affect the carrier, and the latter way justified in understanding that the delivery order meant to deliver the car in the usual and customary manner by placing it upon the siding. A. J. Tower Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 184 Mass. 472, 69 N.E. 348;Barrie v. Quinby, 206 Mass. 259, 92 N.E. 451;Nichols v. Rougeau, 284 Mass. 371, 187 N.E. 710;Remington v. Pattison, 264 Mass. 249, 162 N.E. 347;Baccari v. B. Perini & Sons, Inc., 293 Mass. 297, 199 N.E. 912; Am. Law Inst. Restatement: Contracts, § 247.

The shipment was made under a uniform straight bill of lading, which was issued by the initial carrier and governed the entire transportation and fixed the rights of all participating carriers including the defendant-the terminal carrier. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 36 S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948;Western Transit Co. v. A. C. Leslie & Co., Ltd., 242 U.S. 448, 37 S.Ct. 133, 61 L.Ed. 423;Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Ward, 244 U.S. 383, 37 S.Ct. 617, 61 L.Ed. 1213;Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Alvin R. Durham Co., 271 U.S. 251, 46 S.Ct. 509, 70 L.Ed. 931. It has been said that the purpose of Congress in enactingthe Interstate Commerce Act, U.S.C., Title 49, § 1 et seq., 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. was to establish the obligations of the carrier in respect to services rendered within the purview of the act by uniform rule in place of the varying requirements of State legislation and decisions. Boston & Maine Railroad v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97, 34 S.Ct. 526, 58 L.Ed. 868, L.R.A.1915B, 450, Ann.Cas.1915D, 593;Southern Railway v. Prescott, 240 U.S. 632, 36 S.Ct. 469, 60 L.Ed. 836;St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592, 37 S.Ct. 462, 61 L.Ed. 917. The term ‘transportation’ has been broadly defined by the act, U.S.C., Title 49, § 1, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1, to include ‘all services in connection with the receipt, delivery * * * and handling of property transported.’ Almost every detail of the subject matter has been covered by the act. It is settled that the rights of the parties are to be determined by the bill of lading and the common-law principles accepted and enforced by the federal courts. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U.S. 612, 36 S.Ct. 410, 60 L.Ed. 825, L.R.A.1917A, 197;Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway v. Rankin, 241 U.S. 319, 36 S.Ct. 555, 60 L.Ed. 1022, L.R.A.1917A, 265;Western Transit Co. v. A. C. Leslie & Co., Ltd., 242 U.S. 448, 37 S.Ct. 133, 61 L.Ed. 423;Chesapeake & Ohio Railway v. Martin, 283 U.S. 209, 51 S.Ct. 453, 75 L.Ed. 983;Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28, 57 S.Ct. 73, 81 L.Ed. 20.

The transportation of the car was suspended when, as a result of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rice & Lockwood Lumber Co. v. Boston & M.R.R.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 10, 1941
  • Fluoro Elec. Corp. v. Smith Transport, Limited
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • December 2, 1959
    ...... See, e.g., Rice & Lockwood Lumber Co. v. Boston & M.R.R., 308 Mass. 101, . ......
  • Northeast Wholesale Flower Corp. v. Boston Flower Exchange
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 9, 1955
    ...Onion Storage Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., 222 Mass. 535, 111 N.E. 367; Rice & Lockwood Lumber Co. v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 308 Mass. 101, 31 N.E.2d 219; Caggiano v. Marchegiano, 327 Mass. 574, 99 N.E.2d The final decree dismissing the bill is affirmed with costs o......
  • Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. New York Cent. R.R. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • October 21, 1965
    ...respondent (Edward R. Macomber, Rochester, of counsel). Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. See Rice & Lockwood Lumber Co. v. Boston & Maine R. R., 308 Mass. 101, 31 N.E.2d 219. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe Trial Term, Clarence J. Henry, J., in favor of defendant dismissing the ...

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