The St. Louis v. Larned

• Citation: 103 Ill. 293,1882 WL 10314
• Parties: THE ST. LOUIS AND IRON MOUNTAIN RAILROAD COMPANYv.RUSSEL M. LARNED.
• Decision Date: 21 June 1882
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

103 Ill. 293

1882 WL 10314 (Ill.)

THE ST. LOUIS AND IRON MOUNTAIN RAILROAD COMPANY

v.RUSSEL M. LARNED.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Ottawa Jun. 21, 1882.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;--heard in that court on appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. SIDNEY SMITH, Judge, presiding.

Mr. CHARLES H. WOOD, for the appellant.

Mr. E. C. LARNED, and Mr. A. M. PENCE, for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

It appears that one G. T. Potter, in the years 1879 and 1880, was engaged in Arkansas in the purchase of cotton for Lockwood & Co., of Waterville, in Maine, and appellee, of Providence, Rhode Island, and other eastern manufacturers. They furnished him money, and he purchased the cotton and delivered it to appellant, at its depot in Texarkana, when receipts or tickets were given to him as each separate lot was delivered. When he wished to make a shipment he returned the tickets, and a bill of lading was given him. He thereupon drew on the consignee for the value of the cotton thus shipped, and attached the bill of lading and obtained the money on the draft. In this manner he raised money to pay for the cotton he purchased. Having cotton in the depot for which he held tickets, the freight agent by mistake shipped fifty bales to Waterville, which were intended to be shipped to Larned, at Providence. When Potter came to ship it to Larned he heard of the mistake, but being informed that it was still at Waterville, it was agreed that the railroad company would have it reshipped to Putnam, Connecticut. Thereupon the railroad company gave Potter a through bill of lading, using an ordinary printed blank, with all of the terms and conditions, but writing in the undertaking to so deliver it. This bill of lading was assigned to Larned, attached to a draft drawn on him and sent forward, and the draft was paid. The railroad company failed to make delivery. Larned was informed the cotton was at Waterville, but on inquiry it was found that the last carrier, the Maine Central Railroad Company, had delivered it to Lockwood & Co. On demand they refused to deliver it to Larned, and he sued appellant for a failure to deliver according to the terms of its bill of lading. A trial was had in the Superior Court of Cook county, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff. The case was removed to the Appellate Court, the judgment was affirmed, and defendant appeals to this court.

It is urged that railroads may, by express contract, limit their liability to loss on their own road, and against loss occurring beyond the terminus of their own line, and that the bill of lading in this case contained a restriction of that kind. Admitting this bill of lading does contain such a stipulation, after naming the number of bales of cotton shipped, it contains this: “To be forwarded from Waterville, Maine, (where the cotton is now lying) at consignee's expense. All charges for transportation to that point, and necessary charges, also to be paid by him.” This was written in a blank in the bill of lading. While it is true that a...