St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Kilberry

• Decision Date: 20 May 1907
• Citation: 102 S.W. 894
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. et al. v. KILBERRY et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

102 S.W. 894

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. et al. v. KILBERRY et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 20, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Antonio B. Grace, Judge.

Action by M. C. Kilberry and others against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

S. H. West, Bridges, Wooldridge & Gantt, Tom M. Mehaffy, and J. E. Williams, for appellants. Taylor & Jones, W. N. Carpenter, and H. A. Parker, for appellees.

McCULLOCH, J.

The plaintiffs instituted this action against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company and the St. Louis Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages for injuries to a lot of horses and cattle. The cars containing the stock were shipped from St. Louis, Mo., under a bill of lading issued by the first-named company, commonly called the "Cotton Belt" road, to De Witt, Ark., a station on the line of that road. The Cotton Belt had no railroad out of St. Louis at that time, and the cars of stock were transported by the other company over its line from St. Louis to Delta, Mo., and thence by the Cotton Belt over its own line to De Witt, the destination. The injury to the stock occurred while being transported by the Iron Mountain from St. Louis to Delta, and there is no evidence tending to show that it occurred while on the line of the Cotton Belt road.

The bill of lading contained the following clause: "Second. It is mutually agreed that, if the destination of the aforesaid cars be on the line of St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, then the St. Louis Southwestern agrees to deliver same to consignee after payment of the charges and surrender of this contract; but, if the destination of such cars be beyond the line of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, then the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company agrees, and it and each connecting carrier in turn is hereby authorized, to deliver said cars to its connecting carrier for transportation, under the terms, stipulations, limitations, and agreements herein contained, and each and every carrier receiving said cars for transportation shall be deemed to adopt the terms and conditions hereof, and assume the like liability, and shall be entitled to all the provisions, exemptions from and limitations of liability, and other stipulations governing the measure and adjustment of damages herein contained; it being understood and agreed that the duty and liability of the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, and that of every other carrier transporting said cars hereunder, absolutely ceases and terminates upon delivery by it of said cars to its connecting carrier. The St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, in fixing and guarantying through rates to a point beyond its own line, acts only as agent for connecting line or lines, and in no case and under no circumstances shall the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company be held liable for any injury to or loss of the stock transported hereunder, from any cause whatsoever, happening or accruing beyond its own line, and, in the event of injury to or loss of said stock, only the carrier on whose line the injury or loss actually occurs shall be liable." The circuit court held that as De Witt, the destination of the stock, was on the line of the Cotton Belt, the clause just quoted from the bill of lading did not exempt that company from liability for injury to the property which occurred on the other line, and instructed the jury that "by the terms of said contract, if De Witt, Ark., was a station upon the line of the Cotton Belt Railway, then said railway became and was an insurer of the safe transportation of the plaintiff's property therein mentioned from St. Louis to De Witt, without regard to what lines of railway it might be necessary to use in effecting such transportation."

This court, following the English rule first laid down in Muschamp v. Lancaster & Preston Junction Railway, 8 M. & W. 421, has held that the acceptance by a carrier of goods for transportation, in the absence of an express contract restricting its liability, implies an undertaking on its part to transport them to the place to which they are consigned or directed, wherever that may be, even beyond its own line, and that such carrier is responsible for loss or injury occurring on the line of a connecting carrier. K. C., Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Washington, 74 Ark. 9, 85 S. W. 406, 69 L. R. A. 65, 109 Am. St. Rep. 61. This view is not in accord with the weight of American authority, but we adopted it as the more reasonable one of the two lines of decisions on the subject. In the absence of a stipulation restricting liability, not only the initial carrier, but also any other carrier on whose line loss or injury to the property occurs, is responsible to the owner therefor. 1 Hutchinson on Carriers, § 236. Now, the question in the case is whether the contract expressly exempts the Cotton Belt road, the company which issued the...