Rocky Mount Mills v. Wilmington & W.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 November 1896
• Citation: 25 S.E. 854,119 N.C. 693
• Parties: ROCKY MOUNT MILLS v. WILMINGTON & W. R. CO. et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

25 S.E. 854

119 N.C. 693

ROCKY MOUNT MILLS v. WILMINGTON & W. R. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 10, 1896

Appeal from superior court, Edgecombe county; Hoke, Judge.

Action by the Rocky Mount Mills against the Wilmington & Weldon Railroad Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company to recover damages for delays in the transportation of freight. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Two defendant railroad corporations entered into a traffic arrangement, and associated themselves as a "fast freight line." Plaintiff contracted with the general agent of such associated line for the shipment of freight over the line. Held, that the companies were jointly liable under the contract for damages resulting from delay in the transportation of the freight irrespective of the portion of the line on which such delay occurred.

John L Bridgers, for appellants.

Jacob Battle and Brown & Connor, for appellee.

FAIRCLOTH C.J.

The defendants are duly-organized companies engaged in the business of common carriers with their several connecting lines, with all the responsibilities and immunities attaching to the business of such carriers. While we do not find it necessary to enter into the vast field of authorities and decisions defining the duties and relations of such carriers among themselves and to the public, a few general principles may be stated without citing authorities. Common carriers are required to carry freight safely over their own lines, and make prompt delivery to the nearest connecting line, when the consignee lives beyond the terminus of their own line; and when this is done, in the absence of any other agreement their duties are performed, and they are not responsible for any loss or damage unless it occurs while the goods are in their possession, and under the control of themselves or their agents and servants. A common carrier has power to enter into contracts, and may stipulate with his customers imposing a limitation on his common-law liability, in regard to rates, distance, time, and place of delivery, and the nature of the articles to be carried, whether perishable or not, unusual hazards and the like, provided always that the limitations are just and reasonable in the eye of the law; and such contracts will be enforced. One well-settled rule of law is that no such company can stipulate for exemption from the consequences of its own negligence or that of its agents or servants. A just regard for the rights of individuals and public policy will not permit it. The business of transporting passengers and freight in our state is important, and for the mutual benefit of carrier and shipper, and must be conducted under reasonable regulations. The court cannot assume that either party in such business intends to contract contrary to law and such reasonable regulations as the public interests require. An instance of an unreasonable stipulation is pointed out in Branch v. Railroad, 88 N.C. 573, where the clause in the bill of lading was that the goods will be shipped "at the convenience of the company," which was held not to protect against an unreasonable delay. The bill of lading filed in the record contains both the receipt and the contract. It is not denied that all the parties had power to enter into the contract, and the terms of the contract are not in dispute. It is agreed that the bill contains the contract. The meaning and effect of the contract on the rights of the parties are the questions presented.

The defendant Pennsylvania Railroad Company was brought into court by attachment process, and subsequently entered a general appearance, and filed an answer to the complaint, and then moved to dismiss the attachment on the ground that an attachment would not lie under our statute. We think his honor rightly held that the motion to dismiss the attachment was immaterial, as the defendant was then otherwise in court. So that matter is out of the way. It appears that the defendant Wilmington & Weldon Railroad Company is one of several connecting lines running south, and doing business under the name of the Atlantic Coast Line, and that the defendant Pennsylvania Railroad Company is a system with several lines running northeast. The machinery was received at Lowell, Mass., and its destination was Rocky Mount, N. C a point on the Wilmington & Weldon Railroad Company's line, and these systems connect somewhere between Lowell and Rocky Mount. The contract was between the plaintiff and the Atlantic Coast Despatch All-Rail Fast Freight Line, operating over the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Atlantic Coast Line and connections. This agreement is signed by T. M. Emerson, traffic manager Atlantic Coast Line, Wilmington, N. C., and by Charles F. Nye, northeastern freight agent, Boston, Mass., and by other...