Southern Railway Company v. Vaughn

Decision Date22 May 1905
Citation38 So. 500,86 Miss. 367
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesSOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MARGARET A. VAUGHN

April 1905

FROM the circuit court of Webster county, HON. J. T. DUNN, Judge.

Miss Vaughn, the appellee, was plaintiff, and the railway company the appellant, defendant in the court below. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor the defendant appealed to the supreme court.

The suit was begun in a justice of the peace's court by appellee against appellant for $ 58, the value of one sewing machine shipped by appellee on December 21, 1901, from Eupora, Miss. consigned to appellee at Caddo, Indian Territory. The bill of lading contained this provision--viz "Received by the Southern Railway Company, at Eupora Miss. December 12, 1901, from (M. A. Vaughn) the property described below (the sewing machine), . . . which said carrier agrees to carry to said destination (Caddo, I. T.) if on its own road, or otherwise to deliver to another carrier on the route to said destination," and a further provision limiting the liability of appellant to loss or damage occurring on its own line. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court refused a peremptory instruction for defendant. The opinion of the court contains a statement of such other facts as are necessary to an understanding of the case.

Reversed and remanded.

A. F. Fox, for appellant.

It was nowhere denied, but affirmatively proven by uncontradicted testimony, that the machine was without delay delivered to the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad at Memphis, Tennessee, by the agent of the Southern Railway Company, in good condition.

The bill of lading limits the liability of the defendant absolutely to loss or damage that might occur on its own line through the negligence of its servants, and here it is affirmatively proven that, whatever might have occurred afterward, the identical machine in controversy was delivered in good order without delay at Memphis, Tennessee, to another carrier, by the agent of the Southern Railway Company. For this reason the peremptory instruction should have been granted. Crawford v. Railroad Association, 51 Miss. 222; Railroad Co. v. Kerr, 68 Miss. 14.

N. W. Bradford, for appellee.

If the machine in controversy was lost through the negligence or misconduct of the defendant company, no notice of the loss was required. Southern Express Co. v. Hunnicutt, 54 Miss. 566.

The testimony of witnesses Gray and Jenkins was sufficiently contradicted by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT