Roberts v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry Co.

CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
Writing for the CourtWilliams
Citation185 S.W. 69
PartiesROBERTS v. NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO.
Decision Date22 April 1916
185 S.W. 69
ROBERTS
v.
NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. CO.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
April 22, 1916.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Henry County; J. W. Ross, Chancellor.

Suit by Levi Roberts against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company. A decree by the chancellor dismissing the bill was reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and defendant appeals. Decree of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of the chancellor affirmed.

Fitzgerald Hall, of Nashville, and S. P. Fitzhugh, of Paris, for appellant. Taylor & Hudson, of Paris, for appellee.

WILLIAMS, J.


The bill of complaint was filed to recover $706.50, as the value of certain tobacco delivered by complainant, Roberts, to the railway company at Puryear, Tenn., under a contract to be transported to and delivered at Paducah, Ky.; and it is alleged that the tobacco had never been so transported and delivered.

The chancellor held that complainant was seeking to recover on a contract that called for an expedited delivery of tobacco on a specified date fixed; that such a contract is void under the federal statute, and on that ground dismissed the bill of complaint.

Complainant, Roberts, appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals, and that court reversed the ruling of the chancellor, and entered a decree in favor of complainant in the amount sued for.

The testimony shows that Roberts placed in the company's depot at Puryear the tobacco, and that while it yet remained in the depot it was destroyed by a fire which originated on premises other than defendant's, but was communicated to the depot. Negligence on the part of the company in respect of the fire is not shown.

The bill of complaint alleged among other things:

"That complainant in the month of June, 1913, delivered to defendant in the town of Puryear, Tenn., a station along defendant's railway between Memphis and Paducah, about 50 miles south of last-named place, five hogshead of tobacco, to wit, 9,000 pounds worth $706.50, on a contract that the defendant would deliver said tobacco to complainant at Paducah, Ky., in good order on the morning of Tuesday, June 17, 1913, the defendant for a valuable consideration contracting so to do."

After proof was introduced, but before the chancellor had announced his conclusion, complainant was granted permission to and did amend the bill of complaint by adding after the words "June 17, 1913," the words "that said time was a reasonable time within which to transport said tobacco from Puryear to Paducah, a distance of about 50 miles."

The ruling of the chancellor was evidently based upon the decision in the case of Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, 32 Sup. Ct. 648, 56 L. Ed. 1033, and upon the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act and the acts amendatory thereof.

Page 70

The Interstate Commerce Act, § 3 (U. S. Comp. St. 1913, §...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155; Clegg v. Railroad Co., 203 Fed. 971; St. L.I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. West, 159 S.W. 142; Roberts v. Ry. Co., 185 S.W. 69; Adams Exp. Co. v. Burr Oak, 206 S.W. 173; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U.S. 560, 44 Sup. Ct. 410; Dollinger v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 282 S.W. 1047; Rich......
  • Fallgren v. Railway Exp. Agency
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • November 30, 1953
    ...R. Co. v. Warren Co. Strawberry Growers' Ass'n, 206 Ky. 482, 267 S.W. 551; Roberts v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Railroad, 135 Tenn. 48, 185 S.W. 69; Johnson v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 111 Me. 263, 270, 88 A. In the absence of an enforceable contract for delivery at a particular time, ......
  • Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 11, 1918
    ...134 Tenn. 221, 183 S. W. 739, affirmed 239 U. S. 446, 36 Sup. Ct. 137, 60 L. Ed. 375; Roberts v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 135 Tenn. 48, 185 S. W. 69; Louis. & N. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 35 Sup. Ct. 494, 59 L. Ed. 853, L. R. A. 1915E, 665. A contractual obligation cannot support......
3 cases
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155; Clegg v. Railroad Co., 203 Fed. 971; St. L.I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. West, 159 S.W. 142; Roberts v. Ry. Co., 185 S.W. 69; Adams Exp. Co. v. Burr Oak, 206 S.W. 173; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U.S. 560, 44 Sup. Ct. 410; Dollinger v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 282 S.W. 1047; Rich......
  • Fallgren v. Railway Exp. Agency
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • November 30, 1953
    ...R. Co. v. Warren Co. Strawberry Growers' Ass'n, 206 Ky. 482, 267 S.W. 551; Roberts v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Railroad, 135 Tenn. 48, 185 S.W. 69; Johnson v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 111 Me. 263, 270, 88 A. In the absence of an enforceable contract for delivery at a particular time, ......
  • Carolina Spruce Co. v. Black Mountain R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 11, 1918
    ...134 Tenn. 221, 183 S. W. 739, affirmed 239 U. S. 446, 36 Sup. Ct. 137, 60 L. Ed. 375; Roberts v. Nashville, etc., R. Co., 135 Tenn. 48, 185 S. W. 69; Louis. & N. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 35 Sup. Ct. 494, 59 L. Ed. 853, L. R. A. 1915E, 665. A contractual obligation cannot support......

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