Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. A.R. Harper Piano Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 1912 |
| Citation | 58 So. 491,63 Fla. 264 |
| Parties | SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. v. A. R. HARPER PIANO CO. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1912.
Error to Curcuit Court, Alachua County; J. T. Wills, Judge.
Action by the A. R. Harper Piano Company against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
The liability of a warehouseman for the loss of goods is different from that of a common carrier.
Where a judgment is obtained against a railroad company as a common carrier for the loss of goods, and the evidence shows that the goods were held by the railroad company not as a common carrier but as a warehouseman, and liability as warehouseman was not proven, the judgment will be reversed.
Where the consignee who holds the bill of lading does not refuse to take the goods, but directs the carrier to hold them at destination pending negotiations between the consignee and consignor as to the goods, and this holding is in effect acquiesced in by the consignor, if the goods are lost while being so held, the liability of the railroad company is that of warehouseman, and not of common carrier.
COUNSEL Hampton & Hampton, of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
W. S Broome, of Gainesville, for defendant in error.
An action was brought against the railroad company as a common carrier, and judgment was obtained against the carrier for the value of a piano and for the penalties prescribed by chapter 5618, Acts of 1907, for the failure of a carrier to pay within 60 days from its presentation a claim for freight lost by the carrier. The defendant took writ of error.
The third count of the declaration on which the judgment must be predicated does not allege facts showing a liability of the defendant, but there can be no recovery in this action on the evidence.
It appears that A. R. Harper, doing business as A. R. Harper Piano Company, consigned a piano to Miss Pemberton at Oxford Fla. When the piano reached Oxford, the consignee was notified, and she requested the agent of the carrier to hold it until she could adjust with the consignor some matters relating to the purchase of the piano; Miss Pemberton holding the bill of lading showing her to be the consignee. The piano was burned with the depot of the carrier on May 17, 1910. There is testimony that perhaps two weeks before the fire the consignor by letter requested the agent of the carrier to hold the piano until the 1st of June, and if not accepted by that time, to ship the piano to another point, and also that the agent had been directed to ship the piano to another place. And there is testimony that during the day before the fire the consignee received a letter from the piano company telling her to let the piano stay at the depot until Mr. Harper returned from a trip, and the agent of the carrier was informed of the contents of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A.R. Harper Piano Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
- Twins Int'l Mktg. v. Lagaci, Inc.
-
Suddath Moving & Storage Co. v. Roure, 71-940
...Our Supreme Court long ago determined that in a particular case a carrier may also be a warehouseman. S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. A. R. Harper Piano Co., 1912, 63 Fla. 264, 58 So. 491. Clearly that was that status of Suddath here, and the entry of judgment on the verdict for Roure was correct. See ......