Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Schenck

• Decision Date: 11 January 1929
• Citation: 119 So. 517,97 Fla. 16
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. v. SCHENCK.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

119 So. 517

97 Fla. 16

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. v. SCHENCK.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

January 11, 1929

Error to Circuit Court, Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

Action by C. D. Schenck against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed on condition of remittitur.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Shipper's recovery for damage to goods in transit held limited to value stated in bill of lading. Recovery of shipper for damage to household goods in transit held limited to value of goods as fixed by weight and value per pound stated in bill of lading.

COUNSEL L. W. Duval, of Ocala, for plaintiff in error.

Anderson & Anderson, of Ocala, for defendant in error.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

This case comes to this court on writ of error to the circuit court of Marion county, in a case wherein the defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error for damage alleged to have occurred to a shipment of household goods while in transit by the defendant as a common carrier.

There was enough evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

The damage recoverable by the plaintiff, however, was limited in this case by the contract in the form of a bill of lading. That contract fixed the weight of the goods at 2,000 pounds and the value thereof at 10 cents per pound. The judgment was for $255. The plaintiff and defendant were each bound by the contract of shipment in this case. A. C. L R. Co. v. Dexter & Conner, 50 Fla. 180, 39 So. 634, 111 Am. St. Rep. 116; Noone v. Sou. Express Co., 79 Fla 25, 83 So. 607. In the latter cited case Judge Horne, the writer of the opinion therein, says: 'Common honesty, good faith and fair dealing, it seems to the writer, would limit the plaintiff in his recovery to the value as declared by him, though made at a time when it was to his advantage to make it small, and now greatly to his disadvantage when suing for the recovery of damages for the loss of his property by one having exclusive control of it; and in the opinion of the writer the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed.'

The recoverable value of the goods as limited by the contract between the parties in this case was $200.

If within 30 days after the filing of the mandate in the trial court the plaintiff will enter remittitur of $55 of the amount, the judgment will stand affirmed for $200. Otherwise, the...