E. Tenn. & Va. R.R. Co. v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 30 September 1871
• Citation: 53 Tenn. 143
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: East Tennessee & Virginia Railroad Company v. Rogers & Hartsell.

53 Tenn. 143

East Tennessee & Virginia Railroad Company

v.Rogers & Hartsell.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

September Term, 1871.

FROM BRADLEY.

Appeal in error from the judgment of the Circuit Court, September Term, 1870 D. M. KEY, J., sitting by interchange.

J. H. & S. P. Gaut for plaintiffs in error, insisted:

1. The receipt should have been read in the light of the other facts agreed on, and these would make it appear that it was not a special contract to deliver to the consignee: citing 2 Red. Rail., 104 and note; Id., 107, n. 14; Id., 109, s. 163; E. Tenn. & Ga. R. R. Co. v. Nelson, 1 Col., 276; 1 Red. Rail., 101, n. 9.

2. The mark upon the goods is not evidence that the carrier has undertaken to carry them to their destination: citing authorities cited above.

3. When the terminus of the carrier's road is reached he then becomes a forwarder, and is only bound as such: citing Story Bail., ss. 445, 446, 448.

John W. Ramsey for the defendant in error:

1. In England the rule is settled that a carrier receiving goods to be delivered at a point beyond the terminus of his road by a connecting line, is bound for their safe delivery: citing 2 Red. Rail., s. 108.

2. The rule seems unsettled in America. But many of the courts have held the carrier bound in such instances, when from the attendant circumstances a special contract could be implied: citing 2 Red. Rail., s. 180 and n., and authorities there cited.

3. The weight of authority now is that the carrier is bound, unless he shows it was understood differently by both parties: 1 Pars. Con., 687, n. k.; Add. Con., p. 501; Ang. on Carriers, ss. 95, 97; Edwards on Bail., 504, 505.

FREEMAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace to recover for the value of a lot of dressed poultry shipped by Rogers and Hartsell, via East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad, from Chattanooga, for which the company, by their agent, gave the following receipt: “Received of Rogers and Hartsell, for John F. Hagan, Atlanta, the following articles, to-wit: 1 barrel and one box of poultry, 239 lbs., to be forwarded by the East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad, subject to freight and the regulations of the company. Signed, Samuel Rose, Agent.”

In the agreed case in the record it is admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendant shipped the poultry at the proper time, and turned the same over in reasonable time, to the officers and agents of Western and Atlantic road, at Dalton, and that Dalton is the terminus of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad, and that the Western and Atlantic road connects with it at Dalton, and extends to Atlanta, Georgia. It was further admitted that said box of poultry was detained by the agents of the Western and Atlantic road for thirteen days, and by this delay was spoiled and rendered valueless. It is further agreed, that when freight is shipped from the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia road to Atlanta, it is the usage and custom of the officers of the Western and Atlantic road to collect and settle the freight with the other road--that is, their pro rata. The property having been lost to the shipper by the neglect of duty on the part of the Western and Atlantic road, the question is as to the liability of the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia road for such loss, or how far one railroad can be held responsible for the negligence of another where the transportation is continuous and entire over their respective roads, under such a contract as the one in this case.

This is a question upon which the English courts, and many of our American courts, have adopted rules and made a series of decisions, the one distinctly opposite to the other. The English courts, with great unanimity, holding that the carrier giving the receipt and undertaking the carriage of the goods from one point to another, is responsible for all the intermediate routes, unless he shall by express contract limit his liability to the transportation of the goods only to the end of his own road.

There has been diversity of opinion in the courts of the various States of the Union on this question, but it must be conceded that probably the weight of American authority is against the English rule. We have no distinct decision of this direct question in our State, though we think the principle has been adjudged in one case that would be conclusive of the question. We allude to the case of Carter & Hough v. Peck, 4 Sneed, 205. In that case the suit was brought to recover for breach of an alleged undertaking on the part of Carter & Hough to convey plaintiff and his family from Nashville to the city of Memphis. The defendants were the proprietors of a line of stages from Nashville to Waynesborough. Sims & Co,...