Southern Ry. Co. v. Lewis & Adcock Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1918
• Citation: 201 S.W. 131,139 Tenn. 37
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. LEWIS & ADCOCK CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

201 S.W. 131

139 Tenn. 37

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. LEWIS & ADCOCK CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 11, 1918

Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.

Suit by Lewis & Adcock Company against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, and defendant brings certiorari. Reversed and dismissed.

GREEN J.

This suit was brought by Lewis & Adcock to recover $150, the amount of damage claimed to have been suffered by a carload of oats. The oats were shipped from the Richter Grain Company in Cincinnati, Ohio, to the plaintiffs below at Knoxville Tenn., on a uniform through bill of lading. The car was routed over the Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railroad and the Southern Railway Company.

The proof showed clearly that the grain was damaged prior to its delivery to the Southern Railway Company. This fact is not controverted.

The plaintiffs below introduced proof tending to show that they had made a claim against the Southern Railway Company for damage to this shipment, and that an agent of the Southern Railway Company had agreed to pay them for this damage $150. This was denied by the railway company.

The railway company also relied on a stipulation in the bill of lading as follows:

"No carrier shall be liable for loss, damage or injury not occurring on its own road, or its portion of the route, nor after said property has been delivered to the next carrier except as such liability is, or may be imposed by law."

There was a judgment against the railway company for $150, the amount sued for, in the court below and this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. A petition for certiorari has been granted by this court and the case heard by us.

It may be conceded that there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the jury establishing the agreement between Lewis & Adcock and the claim agent of the Southern Railway Company, whereby the railway company undertook to pay $150 for the damage sustained by this carload of oats.

Nevertheless it is contended by the railway company that if such an agreement were made, it was illegal and beyond the power of the carrier or any of its agents. We think this contention must be upheld.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States construing the Acts of Congress declare that there must be uniformity in rates, uniformity in service, and uniformity of responsibility on the part of all carriers engaged in interstate commerce. The duties and responsibilities of such carriers are defined in the contracts or bills of lading filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Acts of Congress, and these duties and liabilities may not be varied either by act of the carrier or the shipper, or indeed by state laws. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Ward, 244 U.S. 383, 37 S.Ct. 617, 61 L.Ed. 1213; Georgia, F. & A R. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 36 S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948; Southern R. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U.S. 632, 36 S.Ct. 469, 60 L.Ed. 836; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U.S. 173, 34 S.Ct. 556, 58 L.Ed. 901; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Harold, 241 U.S. 371, 36 S.Ct. 665, 60 L.Ed. 1050; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155, 32 S.Ct. 648, 56 L.Ed. 1033, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501.

In Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, supra, the carrier undertook to make a contract with the consignor for an expedited shipment of horses from a point in Illinois to New York City. This was a special contract, no form of which was on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and by the terms of which a preference or advantage was given to the shipper. Such contract was held to be illegal.

In Georgia, F. & A. R. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., supra, in discussing a provision of an interstate bill of lading, which it was urged the carrier had waived, the court said:

"But the parties could not waive the terms of the contract under which the shipment was made pursuant to the federal act; nor could the carrier, by its conduct, give the shipper the right to ignore these terms which were applicable to that conduct and hold the carrier to a different responsibility from that fixed by the agreement made under published tariffs and regulations. A different view would antagonize the plain policy of the act and open the door to the very abuses at which the act was aimed."

In Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott, supra, the court said:

"It is also clear that with respect to the service governed by the federal statute the parties were not at liberty to alter the terms of the service as fixed by the filed regulations. This has repeatedly been held with respect to rates (citing authorities), and the established principle applies equally to any stipulation attempting to alter the provisions as fixed by the published rules relating to any of the services within the purview of the act (citing authorities). This is the plain purpose of the statute in order to shut the door to all contrivances in violation of its provisions against preferences and discriminations."

In Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co....