Sunshine Hosiery Mills v. Chambers Truck Co.

• Decision Date: 03 July 1937
• Citation: 107 S.W.2d 515,171 Tenn. 677
• Parties: SUNSHINE HOSIERY MILLS v. CHAMBERS TRUCK CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

107 S.W.2d 515

171 Tenn. 677

SUNSHINE HOSIERY MILLS v. CHAMBERS TRUCK CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 3, 1937

Appeal from Chancery Court, Warren County; T. L. Stewart, Judge.

Suit by the Sunshine Hosiery Mills against the Chambers Truck Company. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Richard Gleaves and W. C. Cherry, both of Nashville, for appellant.

James D. Richardson, of Murfreesboro, for appellee.

FANCHER Special Judge.

This suit was brought in the chancery court of Warren county for the loss of a shipment of certain machinery delivered to the defendant, a public carrier at Murfreesboro, to be shipped to Kankakee, Ill. The shipment was lost in transit over a connecting line. The suit is against the initial carrier and judgment was given against defendant for $2,245.41, principal and interest.

The facts are stipulated. Bill of lading was issued by the defendant, showing a receipt of the articles of machinery and weight, and that freight was prepaid by the shipper. It is signed by Chambers Truck Company, by its agent, and in the heading it shows the following: "shipped by truck Chambers Truck Company," and that it was received subject to the classification and tariffs in effect on the date of the issue of the waybill at Murfreesboro on January 23, 1933; that the shipment was from Sunshine Hosiery Mills consigned to Paramount Textile Machinery Company destination, Kankakee, Ill., that the articles were received in good condition.

Chambers Truck Company, in accepting said shipment from Sunshine Hosiery Mills, stated to the duly authorized agent and representative of Sunshine Hosiery Mills that its line ran only to the city of Nashville, Tenn., and that at this point the services of a connecting carrier would be used in order that the shipment might go forward from Nashville to Kankakee; that the agent of Chambers Truck Company stated to the agent of Sunshine Hosiery Mills that he preferred, and very greatly preferred, making the shipment over a certain carrier with which the Chambers Truck Company was in the habit of doing business and which it regarded as a safe and reliable carrier for such merchandise. However, the agent of Sunshine Hosiery Mills stated to the agent of Chambers Truck Company that he had a friend connected with another line out of Nashville shipping over the line represented by his friend and the Chambers Truck Company complied with this request and made the shipment out of Nashville over the other line, with which it was not in the habit of doing business.

This other connecting line, on which the loss occurred, is insolvent. The question is presented whether the initial carrier is liable under the Carmack Amendment (as amended, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20 (11, 12).

The Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, shows it applies to any common carrier railroad or transportation company subject to the provisions of that act. The Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq., applies to certain stated common carriers, and enumerates carriers by railroad and those carrying partly by railroad and partly by water certain pipe lines, etc., but does not mention carriers by motortruck. Under the well established rule that where matters included are enumerated, the effect is to...