St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas v. McIntyre

• Citation: 82 S.W. 346
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. McINTYRE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Decision Date: 18 June 1904
• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas

82 S.W. 346

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. McINTYRE.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1904.

Appeal from Fannin County Court; Tom. C. Bradley, Judge.

Action by Z. T. McIntyre against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

E. B. Perkins, McReynolds & Hay, and Head & Dillard, for appellant. R. M. Rowland, for appellee.

TALBOT, J.

Appellee, Z. T. McIntyre, sued appellant, the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas, in the county court of Fannin county, Tex., to recover the sum of $500, the alleged value of five boxes of household goods shipped by appellee at Spartanburg, S. C., January 5, 1903. Appellee alleged that said goods were delivered to the Southern Railway Company to be transported over the line of said railway company and other connecting carriers, destined to Ladonia, Tex.; that the goods were delivered to and accepted by the appellant, and, by its negligence, lost to plaintiff while in the possession of appellant. The defendant, by its amended answer, pleaded specially, among other things, that the bill of lading and shipping contract under which said goods were transported stipulated that "the shipper may elect to accept the conditions printed on the face and back hereof and the reduced rate applying thereunder, or may as provided below require the carriage of the property at the carrier's liability; * * *" and, in the event of loss or damage to such goods, the value of same was limited to $5 per 100 pounds of the weight of same; that such goods weighed 1,260 pounds, and, if it was liable in any sum to appellee, it was in a sum not exceeding $63; that said goods were transported at a reduced rate, and that, the contract being made in South Carolina, where it was to be partly performed, same was valid, reasonable, and binding —and prayed that, in the event a recovery should be had against it, it would be for a sum not exceeding $63. Exceptions were sustained to this special answer, and the case tried without a jury on the 23d day of October, 1903, and judgment rendered in favor of the appellee for the sum of $300. Appellant excepted to the judgment of the court below, and has perfected its appeal to this court.

The evidence is sufficient to establish the following facts: That on January 5, 1903, in Spartanburg, S. C., the Southern Railway Company received and accepted from plaintiff, Z. T. McIntyre, five boxes of household goods, weighing 1,260 pounds, to be transported by said Southern Railway Company and connecting carriers from Spartanburg to Ladonia, Tex., and to be delivered at Ladonia to said Z. T. McIntyre, the consignee. At the time of the delivery of said goods to the carrier at Spartanburg, plaintiff paid said carrier the freight charges demanded for a through shipment of the same from Spartanburg to Ladonia, which freight charges were $26.33. The Southern Railway Company is sued and caused to be delivered to plaintiff a bill of lading which recites, among other things, that, in consideration of a reduced freight rate granted to plaintiff, he agrees to be bound by the following notation or stipulation written on the face of the bill of lading: "Value limited to $5.00 per 100 pounds, in case of loss or damage." Plaintiff's son attended to the shipping of the goods, and received said bill of lading, and nothing was said between plaintiff, or his son, and the Southern Railway Company, about the value of the goods shipped, or about any other freight rate than the one the goods were shipped under. The agents of the Southern Railway Company at Spartanburg were not authorized to accept a shipment of this character at any other freight rate than the one they charged plaintiff; plaintiff was offered no choice between the rate he paid and some other rate; and there was no consideration for the stipulation limiting the value of the goods to $5 per 100 pounds in case of loss or damage. In the due course of transportation, said five boxes of household goods were delivered by one of the carriers over whose lines they were routed to the defendant, the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. Defendant, in its capacity of common carrier, accepted said goods for transportation by it over its line toward Ladonia, the point of destination, but defendant did not complete the carriage undertaken by it. None of the goods in question ever reached Ladonia, but they were totally destroyed by fire while on defendant's line of railway, and in defendant's possession. On the trial of this case the defendant offered no evidence whatever to explain the circumstances connected with the destruction of the goods, and to rebut the legal presumption of negligence. In Ladonia, and at the time the goods should have been delivered, the value of the same amounted to the sum of $300, and plaintiff was damaged $300 by the loss of his goods.

Appellant's first assignment of error complains of the action of the court in sustaining appellee's exceptions to appellant's special answer. The question arising upon this ruling of the court is substantially presented by other assignments of error predicated upon the exclusion of evidence and the supposed erroneous conclusions of law reached by the court below, and such assignments need not be discussed in detail. Appellant's contention, as shown by these assignments, is, in effect, that, the contract of shipment having been made and to be partly performed in the state of South Carolina, the laws of that state govern in the interpretation and enforcement of said contract; that under the law of South Carolina a common carrier may by contract limit its liability, or the amount of damages which may be recovered against it for loss or injury to property sustained by reason of its own negligence; that, by the terms of the bill of lading in the shipment under consideration, appellant's liability was limited in the event of the loss of the property shipped to $5 per 100 pounds, and plaintiff's recovery should be limited accordingly.

The general rule undoubtedly is that a contract valid where made is valid everywhere. But to this general rule, however, is the universally recognized and firmly established exception that, where the contract contravenes the settled policy of the laws of the state where sought to be enforced, its terms will not be upheld. In such case that comity existing between the states upon which the general rule above stated is founded will not be allowed to thwart or interfere with the public policy of the state of the forum. It may be doubted whether the contract in question here would be enforced in South Carolina. The decision of the court of that state offered in evidence, as shown by the bill of exception, in support of appellant's theory and contention that it would be, is, we think, distinguishable on the facts from the case at bar. In the South Carolina case there was a shipment of hogs under a special contract signed by the shipper, which contained stipulations "that the hogs were to be shipped upon the following contract, terms and conditions, which are admitted by me to be just and reasonable." The conditions of this contract upon which the shipment was made, necessary to state, are as follows: "And I further agree that in the event the said East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railway or any of said connecting transportation companies, shall become or be held liable for any reason or any account, for any injury to or for the death of any of said stock, the valuation of injury or loss shall in no event exceed the following: For stallions or jacks $200.00; for horses or mules $100.00 each, for cattle $30.00 each and for other stock $5.00 each." In stating the case, the court says, "Here the plaintiffs, in consideration of the reduced rate of ninety-eight dollars per car load, have agreed that in case of loss the carrier shall be liable only for the valuation stated in such agreement, to wit, four hogs, five dollars each," and argues the case apparently upon the hypothesis that the parties fairly entered into a contract in which the value of the property shipped was ascertained and mutually agreed upon, and that the shipper, "having reaped the advantage obtained by the special contract, must, as a matter of common justice, bear the burden which such contract imposes," and, consistent therewith holds that proof that the hogs were worth more than the value agreed upon was inadmissible. In the case we are considering, an ordinary bill of lading was issued by the initial carrier's agent, but not signed by appellee, or any one for him. There is no pretense that the value of the several articles of household goods shipped was discussed and agreed upon. Certainly the bill of lading or contract does not fix any value upon them. The stipulation in the bill of lading, on the contrary, is simply an arbitrary limitation of the amount of appellant's liability in case of loss to $5 per 100 pounds weight of said property, without reference to its value. Appellant's agent at Spartanburg testified that he was not authorized to quote appellee any other rate than the one charged him,...