Shannon v. Hines

• Decision Date: 16 December 1920
• Docket Number: No. 2804.,2804.
• Citation: 226 S.W. 283,205 Mo. App. 629
• Parties: SHANNON v. HINES, Director General of Railroads.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

226 S.W. 283

205 Mo. App. 629

SHANNON v. HINES, Director General of Railroads.

No. 2804.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 16, 1920.

Rehearing Denied January 1, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jaspel. County; Allen McReynolds, Special Judge.

Suit by Roscoe Shannon against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed, on condition of remittitur.

W. Jamison, of St. Louis, and L. E. Spencer, of Joplin, for appellant.

Frank H. Lee, of Joplin, and H. L. Shannon, of Miami, Okl., for respondent.

STURGIS, P. J.

This suit Is against the Director General of Railroads in control of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad and we will speak of that railroad as defendant. By his petition plaintiff alleges that he delivered to the defendant a certain trunk and its contents to be transported as his personal baggage from Joplin, Mo., to Wichita Falls, Tex., and that defendant accepted same by issuing a check therefor; that defendant failed to transport or deliver same to him at Wichita Falls, or elsewhere, but on the contrary, delivered same to some person at Joplin, whereby plaintiff lost his trunk and contents. The evidence proves these facts, and more particularly that plaintiff purchased a ticket and became a passenger on one of defendant's trains from Joplin to Wichita Falls and that this trunk was presented by him and checked in the usual way as his personal baggage without any further charge; that the person to whom the trunk was delivered at Joplin was a United States officer connected with the Internal Levenue Service, and the delivery to him was more in the nature of a seizure of same on his discovery that the trunk contained, in addition to plaintiff's clothing and other proper personal baggage, eight quarts of whisky. The suit was commenced in a justice court and the defenses are gathered from the evidence instead of any pleading. The case reached the circuit court on appeal and was there tried by a special judge without a jury, resulting in a judgment for plaintiff.

The defendant showed at least two good reasons why It could not be held for failure to transport and deliver at destination the trunk containing the whisky. The plaintiff did not disclose to defendant's agent checking this trunk that same contained whisky, and this was discovered by the revenue officer opening up the trunk in defendant's baggageroom a short time before the train left on which plaintiff and his trunk were to be carried. Defendant's agent was not acquainted with plaintiff, and neither he nor the revenue officer had any means of ascertaining to what particular passenger this trunk belonged. The shipment of this trunk containing whisky from Missouri to Texas would have been in plain violation of section 240 of the United States Criminal Code (10 U. S. Comp. Stat. 1916, § 10410, p. 12852), which provides that —

"Whoever shall knowingly ship or cause to be shipped from one state * * *", into any other state * * * any package of or package containing any spirituous * * * or other intoxicating liquor of any kind, unless such package be so labeled on the outside cover as to plainly show the name of the consignee, the nature of its contents, and the quantity contained therein, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars; and such liquor shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law in the seizure and forfeiture of property imported into the United States contrary to law."

This trunk was not labeled on the outside so as to show the consignee or that it contained intoxicating liquors in any quantity, and on discovering that fact defendant properly refused to transport the same. 10 C. J. 282; Rosenberger v. Express Co., 258 Mo. 97, 167 S. W. 429; Harvest King Distilling Co. v. American Express Co., 102 Mo. App. 172, 179 S. W. 797. The trial court took this view of the case, and declared the law to be that plaintiff could not secretly use this checked trunk as a means of transporting whisky into the state of Texas.

The defendant was also excused from transporting this trunk containing whisky as baggage because defendant's tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission defines what articles may be carried as personal baggage, and clearly whisky is not one of the articles that may be so carried. The defendant in checking his trunk could rely on the implied representation that the trunk contained only what could go as proper baggage, and on discovering the fraud its contract to transport is not binding. Brick v. Railroad, 145 N. C. 203, 58 S. E. 1073, 122 Am. St. Rep. 440, 13 Ann. Cas. 328. This is too obvious to require further citation, and the trial court recognized this to be the law.

Whether or not Wichita Falls was in "dry territory," so as to make it unlawful to transport intoxicants from another state thereto, and making this shipment a violation of section 8739, U. S. Compiled Statutes 1916, p. 9538, we need not determine, in view of the at least doubtful validity of the statewide prohibition law of Texas put in evidence by defendant. See Venn v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 210 S. W. 434; White v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 210 S. W. 200. This would only add one more reason excusing defendant's failure to transport and deliver the trunk and its contents in Texas, and one valid defense along this line is as good as a dozen.

The trial court also declared the law to be that if the trunk contained whisky and was checked for transportation as an interstate shipment then the seizure of the whisky by the United States revenue officer and its confiscation by him was a proper and lawful act. This, we think, is correct, at least so far as the seizure is concerned, in view of section 240, U. S. Criminal Code, above...