Schreiber Milling & Grain Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14493.,14493. |
| Citation | 246 S.W. 647 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SCHREIBER MILLING & GRAIN CO. v. CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN R. CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Thos. B. Allen, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by the Schreiber Milling & Grain Company against the Chicago Great Western Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
DuVal Smith and O. E. Shultz, both of St. Joseph, for appellant.
Robert A. Brown and Richard L. Douglas, both of St. Joseph, for respondent.
This is a suit in damages based upon the alleged loss of a carload of alfalfa molasses feed.
Plaintiff is engaged in milling and in the jobbing of grain products and mill feed at St. Joseph, Mo., and in the manufacture of some of the products in which it deals. Its mill and plant are located on the tracks of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, near the Union Depot yards in said city, and the plant of the Grain Belt Company, from which the shipment in question was purchased by plaintiff, is located near the stockyards in South St. Joseph on the track of the Union Terminal Railroad Company, a belt line having switching connections with the Burlington Railroad. The defendant, Chicago Great Western Railroad Company also has direct connections with the Burlington tracks at St. Joseph.
On or about April 27, 1920, plaintiff ordered a carload of molasses feed from the Grain Belt Company, the manufacturer thereof. The product, composed of ground alfalfa mixed with molasses, was in sacks. On April 29 said feed was loaded into C. P. car No. 290004, which said car was not the property of defendant. After the car was loaded at the Grain Belt Company's plant, it was closed, sealed with the seal of said company, and a "switch card" issued to the Terminal Railway Company, with instructions to switch the car to the Burlington tracks for plaintiff. No bill of lading was issued for this movement. The car then was carried by the terminal company to the Burlington connection, and delivered to the latter for order of plaintiff as to final disposition.
On May 3, 1920, while the car was on the Burlington tracks, plaintiff made out a bill of lading, and presented it to defendant company for execution, preliminary to shipping the car to Laddonia, Mo., and on the 5th day of May thereafter defendant transported it to Kansas City, and there delivered it to the Chicago & Alton Railroad for transportation to destination. The shipment was consigned to plaintiff's order, with directions to notify the Farmers' Elevator Company at Laddonia, draft upon the elevator company attached to the bill of lading, being sent to a bank at that place. The elevator company paid the draft on presentation, obtained the bill of lading which they surrendered to the Chicago & Alton Company's agent, and opened the car for the purpose of unloading the contents. It was then discovered that the feed was hot, spoiled, and "burned," whereupon payment of the check was stopped and the shipment refused by the elevator company.
The evidence shows that the feed was worthless. When the car was opened it was found to be filled with gas and vapor, and the inside of the roof was covered with moisture. About two weeks later, at the request of the shipper, the shipment was returned to St. Joseph in the car in which it was shipped. The amended petition charges negligence as follows:
"Plaintiff alleges that the defendant carelessly and negligently received the molasses feed, loaded in a leaky car, and negligently and carelessly transported said molasses feed in an unfit, improper, leaky and unfit car, and that its connecting carrier, the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company negligently and carelessly received said goods in an unsound, improper, leaky, and unfit car and negligently transported it in said car to Laddonia, Mo."
is alleged that the reasonable market value of said feed at the point of destination was $1,299.67; that plaintiff incurred an expense of $115.18 in having the teed shipped back to St. Joseph, and that said expense was incurred in an effort to save the feed from total loss. The prayer was for $1,-414.85, with interest at 3 per cent. from May 15, 1920.
The amended answer admits the corporate status of plaintiff and defendant, and that on May 3, 1920, plaintiff delivered to defendant for transportation from St. Joseph, Mo., to Laddonia, Mo., "a certain freight car supposed to contain 600 sacks of alfalfa molasses feed, to be delivered at Laddonia, to order of plaintiff." Then follows a general denial of each and every other allegation of the petition. As further answer, it is alleged that the car of feed was delivered to defendant under and subject to the terms, provisions, and conditions of a certain written contract entered into between the parties plaintiff and defendant on May 5, 1920, and that pursuant to said contract, defendant caused said car to be transported to Laddonia, Mo., where it made and tendered delivery thereof, containing all the property received by defendant for transportation; that said contract or bill of lading contained, among other provisions, the following:
The answer further alleges that if the contents of the car was in a damaged condition when delivery was tendered at destination, the same resulted from inherent vice or defect in such commodities, rendering them subject to deterioration by being confined in a closed car, and without fault or negligence of defendant carriers. As another defense the answer pleads that the, car containing the commodities was delivered to defendant under seal, in a car not furnished by defend." ant, and if said commodities were not suitable for transportation in said car, and it said car was not suitable for the transportation of such commodities, such facts were known to the plaintiff, and could not be, discovered by the defendant upon inspection after said car had been loaded, closed, and. sealed, and that if said commodities did deteriorate or spoil as a result of any such vice, defect, or condition in either the commodities or said car, such negligent conduct of plaintiff in delivering said shipment to defendant in said car under such circumstances contributed directly in causing such spoiling or deterioration.
The cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial