Southern Ry. Co. v. Moody

• Decision Date: 01 December 1910
• Citation: 169 Ala. 292,53 So. 1016
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. MOODY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

53 So. 1016

169 Ala. 292

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. MOODY.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 1, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by W. L. Moody against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Lawrence E. Brown, for appellant.

Bilbro & Moody, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This action is by the appellee for damages for failure, on the part of the appellant, a common carrier, to deliver certain goods, to wit, certain material for constructing shipping boxes for eggs. The facts are that the material in question was delivered to the defendant, at Huntsville, Ala., on June 5, 1906, for shipment to the plaintiff, at Scottsboro, Ala that on the 11th day of June, the goods not having been delivered, the plaintiff brought this suit; that on the 12th day of June the goods arrived and were tendered to the plaintiff, but he refused to receive the same, as he had already ordered by telephone, and received, other material and shipped his eggs. There was a train each day from Huntsville to Scottsboro, leaving at 10:35 a. m., and reaching Scottsboro at 2:50 p. m. Over the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff, while on the stand as a witness was allowed to testify that "in June eggs will depreciate 20 per cent." The court, trying the case without a jury, made a special finding of the facts, and rendered a judgment against the defendant for $20.

The decisions of this court are clear to the effect that the damages recoverable for the breach of a contract must be those which flow directly and naturally from the breach, and that any special damages claimed must be shown to have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time of making the contract. Nichols v. Rasch, 138 Ala. 372, 35 So 409; Ala. Chemical Co. v. Geiss, 143 Ala. 591, 39 South, 255; Southern Railway Co. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 266, 44 So. 837. Although the delivery of goods be delayed for an unreasonable time, the carrier cannot be charged for the conversion of the goods, unless demand has been made and refused while the goods are in its possession. Its only liability is for damages caused by the deterioration in value of the goods themselves during the time of delay. 2 Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) p. 717, § 651; 6 Cyc. 442 444, 449. The Supreme Court of Florida has had occasion to consider a case very similar to the one now under...