S. D. Seavey Co. v. Union Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 285,106 Wis. 394
• Parties: S. D. SEAVEY CO. v. UNION TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

106 Wis. 394

82 N.W. 285

S. D. SEAVEY CO.

v.UNION TRANSIT CO.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 6, 1900.

Appeal from superior court, Douglas county; C. Smith, Judge.

Action by the S. D. Seavey Company against the Union Transit Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railway received certain goods consigned to the plaintiff, resident at West Superior, upon a bill of lading providing for their transportation over that company's road, in care of the Northern Steamship Company, for delivery to the plaintiff at West Superior, to which point it operated a regular line of freight boats. That contract contained printed provisions exempting the railroad company from liability beyond its line, and constituting it merely a forwarding agent. At Buffalo the merchandise was delivered by the railway company to the defendant, the Union Transit Company, which ran a line of steamboats from Buffalo to West Superior and Duluth. The manifest was in the following words: “Lake Manifest No. 3,058-187, Made at Buffalo, N. Y., Nov. 7, 1897. Freight forwarded by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, via the Union Transit Co., to West Superior, on steamer Portage, trip No. 13.” No notice or knowledge of the original transportation contract was given to the defendant. For reasons of its own convenience, the steamer Portage did not go to West Superior on that trip, but direct to Duluth, where it transferred these goods to the Omaha Railroad for transportation to the plaintiff, to whom they were delivered by the railroad company, damaged while in its possession by freezing and loss $156.25. Upon trial of the case to the court without a jury, the foregoing facts, together with others, were found, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for said amount, with interest and costs, from which this appeal is taken.H. H. Grace and Searles & Spencer, for appellant.

H. V. Gard, for respondent.

DODGE, J. (after stating the facts).

Much argument was indulged in as to the duties and responsibilities of an intermediate and forwarding carrier under the terms of the transportation contract entered into with the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, which is quite irrelevant to the present situation. That contract can have no force here, save as it constitutes the railroad company a forwarding agent for the owner of the goods. The contract made by it in that capacity...