Shea v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 October 1896
• Citation: 68 N.W. 608,66 Minn. 102
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: SHEA ET AL. v CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

66 Minn. 102

68 N.W. 608

SHEA ET AL.vCHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 22, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

It is the duty of a railway company to provide cars reasonably fit for the conveyance of the particular class of goods it intends to carry, and it is not relieved from this duty by transporting the goods over its own line in the car of the connecting carrier in which it received them. If it uses the cars of the connecting carrier, it adopts and makes them its own for the purpose of conveying the goods.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; H. C. Belden, Judge.

Action by J. A. Shea & Co. against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. Verdict for plaintiffs. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Albert E. Clarke and W. F. Booth, for appellant.

Stiles & Stiles and Flannery & Cooke, for respondents.

BUCK, J.

On the 23d day of June, 1894, the plaintiff contracted with the Chicago Great Western Railway Company to transport 307 boxes of lemons from Boston, Mass., to plaintiff, at Minneapolis, Minn. This railroad company has a line of railway from Chicago to Minneapolis, but none from Boston to Chicago. The lemons were forwarded from Boston via the Boston & Maine Railroad in a refrigerator car to Montreal, where the lemons were by it delivered to its connecting carrier, the Grand Trunk Railroad Company, for transportation to Chicago, and by it placed in a common box car with tin roof, and in this vehicle transported to Chicago by the Grand Trunk road, where they arrived on the 29th day of June, 1894. The Great Western Railway Company refused to receive and forward the lemons, alleging as its reason the great strike existing at that time, although it had contracted to do so, and had issued its bill of lading accordingly. Upon this refusal the car loaded with lemons was delivered to this defendant, which owns and operates a railroad from Chicago to West Liberty, Iowa, but it had no line of railroad beyond the latter place in the direction of Minneapolis, although it did there connect with the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway running to Albert Lea, Minn., and there connects with the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway, which extends to Minneapolis. There is some controversy between the respective counsel as to who delivered the lemons to the defendant. In the complaint it is alleged that plaintiff made this delivery. In the answer it is alleged that “this defendant did not receive the said lemons from the plaintiff, but received them from the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company, to be transported over the defendant's line in the direction of Minneapolis, subject to delay caused by labor trouble.” On the trial it was stipulated that on the 27th day of June, 1894, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant 307 boxes of lemons, of the value of $1,842, consigned to plaintiff at Minneapolis, and that defendant, as such common carrier, received the same to be by it safely carried to West Liberty, aforesaid, and there delivered to the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Company, the next connecting carrier. Notwithstanding this stipulation, the defendant subsequently introduced without objection oral evidence and a written receipt showing that the car load of lemons was received by it from the Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Company, and in counsel's brief it is alleged that when the Great Western Railway Company refused to accept and forward the car of lemons the Grand Trunk delivered it to the defendant, although it is there further alleged that plaintiff adopted the delivery as his own act. We are of the opinion that the record quite conclusively shows that the plaintiff had nothing to do personally with the delivery of the car of lemons to the defendant, and that the transaction was one between the Grand Trunk Railway and the defendant. At no time or place did the plaintiff communicate with the defendant or the other carrier mentioned relative to the lemons after the making of the first contract, June 23, 1894, and did not know of any of the proceedings in regard to putting the lemons in an ordinary box car with tin roof, or their delivery in said car to the defendant by the Grand Trunk Railway Company at Chicago. The assumption by the defendant's counsel that the original contract reserving the right on the part of the Chicago Great Western Company to forward the lemons by any railroad line between the point of shipment and destination authorized that company to deliver the lemons to defendant so as to absolve it from any negligence in caring for them while in their possession, transporting them to their destination, is farfetched and unsound. The lemons were in good order when delivered to the defendant at Chicago, June 29, 1894, and it executed a receipt to that effect. There is no evidence to the contrary, and the claim of defendant's counsel that this question of how much of the total loss was due to the damage which occurred after the fruit was taken from the refrigerator car at Montreal and before it reached Chicago should have been submitted to the...