St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bilby
Decision Date | 11 March 1913 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 2430 |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. BILBY. |
¶0 1. CARRIERS--Commerce--Transportation of Live Stock-- Interstate Shipments--Limited Liability--State Regulations. On account of the passage of the Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 St. at L. 584 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1284), the state, under its police power, has ceased to have the authority to pass acts relative to contracts made by carriers pertaining to interstate shipments, and section 9 of article 23 (section 358, Williams' Ann. Const. Okla.) of the Constitution of this state applies only to intrastate shipments (following Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 33 S. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. , decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on January 6, 1913).
(a) As to interstate shipments, the common-law liability of the carrier for the safe carriage of property may be limited by a special contract with the shipper, where such contract, being supported by a consideration, is reasonable and fairly entered into by the shipper, and does not attempt to cover losses caused by the negligence or misconduct of the carrier (following Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, supra).
(b) As to intrastate shipments, only such contracts as are made between the carrier and the shipper pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the Corporation Commission of this state are valid.
(c) All contracts or bills of lading made or issued by carriers as to intrastate shipments, which are inconsistent with the rates, charges, classifications, rules, and regulations adopted by the Corporation Commission of this state, are void.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Carriers--Evidence--Trial- -Transportation of Live Stock--Damages--Issues--Instructions. The petition claimed, as one of the grounds for damages, "rough and indifferent handling," by which the "cattle were badly bruised." Over the objection of the defendant (plaintiff in error), the plaintiff (defendant in error) was permitted to prove that the cattle were badly bruised, which was caused by being lugged about in the cars and jammed against the sides of the cars and ends of the same. Held, not to be reversible error under the issues as framed.
(a) To lay a foundation for the admission of evidence as to the value or damage to cattle, it is sufficient to show that the witness' knowledge was that of a cattle raiser or dealer, and by pricing the same at the time the cattle alleged to have been damaged were placed on the market; the witness stating that he knew the market price. The weight of the opinion or statement as to such price then given is for the jury.
(b) The Live Stock Reporter, which was sought to be introduced in evidence in order to show the market quotations of cattle, neither having been made a part of the record nor the part thereof specially sought to be introduced, this court, on review, is unable to determine whether any error prejudicial to the right of the plaintiff in error was committed, and, under such circumstances, the alleged error cannot be considered on review here.
(c) Although the instruction which was asked on the part of the plaintiff in error, but refused by the trial court, may correctly define the law applicable to the issue or issues in the case, yet, if the subject upon which the instruction was requested is fully covered in the general charge, no reversible error will operate on account of the refusal of the trial court to give same.
Error from Hughes County Court; P. W. Gardner, Judge.
Action by N. V. Bilby against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
W. F. Evans, R. A. Kleinschmidt, and E. H. Foster, for plaintiff in error.
Lewis C. Lawson, for defendant in error.
¶1 This proceeding in error was commenced to review the judgment of the trial court, wherein the defendant in error, as plaintiff, had sued the plaintiff in error, as defendant, to recover damages on a certain shipment of cattle delivered to the railroad company at Holdenville, Okla., on April 6, 1909, to be delivered by said carrier at the National Stock Yards, Ill.
¶2 For convenience, in this opinion the plaintiff will be referred to as shipper, and the defendant as carrier.
¶3 The carrier answered by general denial, and further as follows:
¶4 Afterwards an amendment was filed by the shipper to his original petition, by which he claimed the additional sum of $ 214.60 by reason of the depreciation in the price of the cattle on account of the delay in shipment.
¶5 The shipper demurred to the portion of the answer hereinbefore set out, which is referred to as paragraph 2. The order of the court thereon is as follows:
"The court sustains the demurrer of the plaintiff to so much of the second paragraph of the defendant's answer as seeks to make the company not liable for failure of engines, class of machinery, obstructions to the track, or for any cause whatever; the court sustains the demurrer of plaintiff to so much of the second paragraph of defendant's answer as seeks to make it a condition precedent to the recovery of damages for any death, loss, or injury or delay of live stock, that notice in writing of such claim should be given within one day after its delivery at destination; the limitation being regarded by the court as not reasonable, to which the defendant excepts."
¶6 In due time the shipper filed a reply denying:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial