Thompson v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 11709.,11709.
• Parties: THOMPSON v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

185 S.W. 1145

THOMPSON v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO.

No. 11709.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 1, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; A. D. Burnes, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by S. L. Thompson against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Thomas R. Morrow, George J. Mersereau, and John H. Lathrop, all of Kansas City, and F. B. Ellis, of Plattsburg, for appellant. W. S. Herndon, of Plattsburg, for respondent.

TRIMBLE, J.

Plaintiff made an interstate shipment of three carloads of hogs which he alleges were negligently delayed in transit. He brought this suit against defendant, the initial carrier, for the damage said to have been caused thereby.

The bill of lading under which the hogs were shipped contained an agreement between shipper and carrier that, as a condition precedent to the former's right to recover any loss or damage, a notice in writing should be given of his claim to the nearest station agent of the last carrier before removing or slaughtering the stock, and to allow the expiration of three hours after giving such notice before removing it in order that any loss or damage claimed may be fully and fairly investigated.

It was further agreed and stipulated therein that no suit or action against the company for the recovery of any damages arising out of said shipment could be maintained unless commenced within six months next after the loss or damage shall have accrued.

Neither of these provisions was complied with. As the shipment was one in interstate commerce, the effect to be given to the provisions of the shipping contract is governed wholly by decisions of the federal courts, and they hold that such provisions are valid. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, loc. cit. 672, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690. The state courts are bound to follow their rulings in interstate cases. Hamilton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 177 Mo. App. 151, 164 S. W. 248; Bailey v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 184 Mo. App. 457, 171 S. W. 44; Dunlap v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 187 Mo. App. 201, 172 S. W. 1178; Johnson Grain Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 177 Mo. App. 194, 164 S. W. 182; Clegg v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 203 Fed. 971, 122 C. C. A. 273.

There is no dispute over the fact that the above provisions were not complied...