St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Pickens
| Decision Date | 28 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | 5369. |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. PICKENS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Freight rates on interstate shipments are controlled by the tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and a contract between a shipper and a station agent for a different rate on an interstate shipment, whether it be for more or less than the rate fixed by the tariff, is void.
On interstate shipments, a provision in the contract that the shipper must bring an action for any damages sustained within six months after the cause of action has accrued having been held reasonable and valid, held, that the action must be brought within the time stipulated.
The stipulation in a shipper's contract requiring that the shipper shall give notice of any claim for damages within 24 hours after delivery at the point of destination having been held reasonable and valid, when applied to interstate shipments, held, that such notice is a condition precedent to maintenance of an action for the recovery of damages.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from County Court, Hughes County; J. Ross Bailey, Judge.
Action by J. J. Pickens against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, with directions.
W. F Evans, of St. Louis, Mo., R. A. Kleinschmidt and E. H Foster, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
This action was commenced in the county court of Hughes county by the defendant in error, as plaintiff in that court, against the plaintiff in error, as defendant in that court, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff (the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the lower court) by reason of a shipment of cattle from Mansfield, La., to Holdenville, Okl., claiming: First, that under a contract with the Kansas City & Southern Railway Company at Mansfield, La., he was to pay $59.50 per car for the three cars used in shipping his cattle, while the agent of the defendant at Holdenville, Okl., collected $77.60 per car; and claims by reason of the difference in the price per car he contracted with the agent at Mansfield, La., to pay and the price per car defendant collected he is damaged in the sum of $54.30. In his second count plaintiff claims that some of his cattle died, and others were damaged by reason of the fact that defendant jammed and injured them by negligently handling the cars in which they were shipped, and also by reason of their being unnecessarily delayed in transit and improperly penned and fed.
Defendant answered by general denial, and, among other things, pleaded certain conditions in the contract of shipment, which, in consideration of a reduced freight rate, plaintiff agreed to. The only conditions pleaded important to a decision of this action are conditions No. 13 and No. 16, which are as follows:
No. 13 is:
"As a condition precedent to recovery of damages for any death, loss, injury, or delay of the live stock, the shipper shall give notice, in writing, of his claim, to some general officer of the company, or the nearest station agent, or the agent at destination, and before the live stock is mingled with other live stock, and within one day after its delivery at destination, so that the claim may be fully and fairly investigated, and a failure to comply with this condition shall be a bar to the recovery of any damages for such death loss, injury, or delay."
And No 16 is:
"No suit or action for the recovery of any claim for damages for death, loss, injury, or delay of the live stock shall be sustainable, unless begun within six months next after the cause of action shall accrue, and, if begun later, the lapse of time shall be conclusive evidence against the validity of such claim, any statute of limitation to the contrary notwithstanding."
The defendant also in its answer denied the authority of the agent at Mansfield, La., to make a rate to the plaintiff on an interstate shipment, contrary to the published tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The plaintiff replied by an unverified general denial.
On the issues thus joined the cause was tried to a jury, which found for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered on their...
To continue reading
Request your trial