Southern Pac Co v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 13 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 89,89 |
| Citation | 248 U.S. 446,63 L.Ed. 350,39 S.Ct. 139 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. STEWART |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Henley C. Booth, of San Francisco, Cal., William R. Harr, Charles H. Bates, and C. F. R. Ogilby, all of Washington, D. C., and William F. Herrin, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. P. H. Hayes and Thomas Armstrong, Jr., both of Phoenix, Ariz., for defendant in error.
Stewart sued for damages sustained in transit by dairy cows delivered July 1, 1913, to plaintiff in error for shipment over its railroad from California to Phoenix, Arizona, under a 'live stock shipping order contract and bill of lading' signed both by himself and it, which, among other things, provided:
'Second party [the shipper] hereby further agrees that in case any loss or damage shall have been sustained for which first party is liable, demand or claim for such loss or damage will be made by second party on the freight claim agent of first party in writing, within ten days after unloading of the live stock; and that in event of failure so to do all claims for loss or damage in the premises are hereby expressly waived, released and made void, and it is also expressly agreed by second party that the amount to be by him claimed for each animal as described herein, so lost or damaged, shall be adjusted on basis of value at time and place of shipment, not exceeding the declared value as hereinbefore set forth, and on which declared value the rate or rates of transportation hereinbefore named by first party are based, and in no event is there to be any recovery from first party or its lessors for any loss of or damage to said live stock, from whatsoever cause arising in excess of the declared value hereinbefore set forth.'
As one ground of defense the company relied upon non-compliance with the abovequoted provision. In reply the shipper alleged and at the trial introduced evidence tending to establish facts and circumstances as follows:
He admitted that the cattle were unloaded and received by him July 5, 1913, at Phoenix and that he made no written claim for loss or damage upon any agent of the carrier within ten days thereafter. But he denied that he could have given notice of his claim within such time or that he had waived or released it.
He alleged that on July 4, 1913, and subsequently the carrier had full knowledge of injuries sustained by the cattle; that they were unloaded into its stock-pens at Yuma July 4, 1913, and prior to reloading five died; that they remained in the stock-pens there without shelter or protection nine hours, under care of carrier's agents; that upon reloading it provided an additional car for sick and crippled cows; that at various points en route the train officials received inquiries from other railroad officials as to conditions and after arrival at Phoenix one of the crippled animals remained several days in a car; that immediately after unloading at Phoenix and daily until October 21, shipper and the railroad agents were in communication relative to damages sustained; that the nature and extent of injuries to cows which arrived at destination alive made it impossible to determine within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE FERNCLIFF
...Martin, 192 U.S. 149, 162, 24 S.Ct. 247, 48 L.Ed. 385; Richards on Insurance, 4th Ed., § 130. Such cases as Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U.S. 446, 39 S.Ct. 139, 63 L.Ed. 350; Grace & Co. v. Panama R. Co., 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 338; The Mauretania, 2 Cir., 84 F.2d 408, and The Lake Orange,......
-
Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Pacific Market Co.
... ... (Baltimore ... & O. R. Co. v. Leach, 249 U.S. 217, 39 S.Ct. 254, 63 ... L.Ed. 570; [27 Wyo. 507] Southern P. R. Co. v. Stewart, 248 ... U.S. 446, 63 L.Ed. 350, 39 S.Ct. 139; St. Louis, I. M. & S ... R. Co. v. Starbird, supra; Chesapeake & O. R ... ...
-
Wisconsin Packing Co., Inc. v. Indiana Refrigerator Lines, Inc.
...Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Leach, 249 U.S. 217, 218, 39 S.Ct. 254, 63 L.Ed. 570 (1919). In Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U.S. 446, 450, 39 S.Ct. 139, 140, 63 L.Ed. 350 (1919), the Court found that "the circumstances relied upon by the shipper (that the carrier had full knowledge o......
-
The Eldridge
... ... a prerequisite of an action that the notice of claim as ... required by the bill of lading must be given. To the same ... effect is Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 248 U.S ... 446, 39 Sup.Ct. 139, 63 L.Ed. 350; The Turret Crown (C.C.A.) ... 284 F. 439; The Arctic Bird (D.C.) 109 F ... ...