United States Express Co. v. Joyce

• Decision Date: 29 December 1904
• Docket Number: No. 20,492.,20,492.
• Citation: 72 N.E. 865
• Parties: UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY v. JOYCE et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

72 N.E. 865

UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY

v.JOYCE et al.

No. 20,492.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 29, 1904.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gibson County; O. M. Welborn, Judge.

Action by John E. Joyce and others against the United States Express Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under specification 2, § 10, c. 247, p. 565, Acts 1901 (section 1337j, Burns' Ann. St 1901). Reversed.

See 69 N. E. 1015.

Baker & Daniels and Fields & Harmon, for appellant. Buskirk & Brady and Embree & Benson, for appellees.

DOWLING, C. J

Action by the appellees against the appellant for damages to two car loads of horses shipped by the appellees under special contracts with the appellant as a common carrier. Demurrers to the amended complaint were overruled, and the appellant answered in three paragraphs; the first being a general denial; the second and third alleging facts upon which the appellant based its denial of liability, except in the nominal sum of $5. Demurrers to the second and third paragraphs of answer were sustained. The cause was tried by the court, and a special finding of facts was made, with its conclusions of law thereon. To each of the five conclusions of law the appellant excepted, and the second, third, fourth, and fifth conclusions are now assigned by it as error.

The court found that the appellees were, on and prior to May 23, 1901, partners engaged in the business of buying, selling, and shipping horses; that on said date they owned 30 high-grade carriage horses, which they had collected, and were preparing to ship to Buffalo, N. Y., there to be disposed of at a special sale, which was advertised for May 25, 1901; that on said 23d day of May, 1901, the appellees applied to the appellant express company, a common carrier, for the transportation of said horses from Princeton, Ind., to Buffalo, N. Y., to be delivered at the latter point to the appellees' agents having charge of the special sale; that said horses were thereupon delivered to the appellant by the appellees, the rate of compensation being agreed upon in the sum of $225; that before receiving said horses, the appellant produced a live stock contract, signed by its agent, and requested the appellees to sign the same, which they did; that among the provisions and requirements of said contract were the following: “Notice to Shippers. The shipper will value his stock, which valuation will be inserted in this contract, and the charge for carriage will be based on such valuation. *** Limited Liability live stock contract. *** The Express Company undertakes to forward to the point reached by the Express Company which is nearest to destination, the animals and paraphernalia hereinafter mentioned, *** to wit, twenty-eight horses, *** for the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars, *** which charge is fixed by and based upon the value of said animals and paraphernalia as declared by the shipper, as hereinafter mentioned. *** The charges on the shipment described above at the values specified below will be as follows: For horses, jacks or mules of a value not exceeding $75 each, $225. *** When the value declared by the shipper exceeds the value stated above, an addition to the above-mentioned charge will be made according to the following schedule, to wit: [Here follows a table of charges graduated in proportion to excess of valuation.] *** The shipper, in order to avail himself of said alternative rates, and in consideration thereof being asked by the Express Company to value said property, now declares the values hereinafter mentioned to be the true values of said animals and paraphernalia so to be shipped as follows, to wit: *** (Number and kind): Twenty-eight horses, value $2,100. *** The shipper hereby releases and discharges the Express Company from all liability for delay, injuries to, or loss of, said animals and paraphernalia from any cause whatever, unless such delay, injury, or loss shall be caused by the negligence of the agents or employés of the Express Company, and in such event the Express Company shall be liable only to the extent of actual damage, which shall in no event exceed the valuation herein declared by the shipper.” The court further found that before the appellees signed this contract they objected to the valuation being fixed at not to exceed $75 per head, claiming the stock was worth much more, and asked that this valuation be stricken out; but were informed by the appellant's agent that this was the only form of contract he had, and the horses would not be shipped without a valuation inserted. That the appellees thereupon delivered 30 horses to the appellant for shipment under said contract, but the same were not delivered at Buffalo in time for such special sale, but, by reason of the negligence of the appellant, the horses were injured through the overturning of the car in which they were being carried, and were thereby rendered unfit to be put on the market at said sale. That, if the horses had been delivered in good condition, and pursuant to the contract of shipment, in time for such special sale, they would have been of the average value of $200 per head, or $170 per head if delivered in good condition on the 25th day of May, 1901, at other than a special sale; that said horses were on May 27, 1901, sold by the agents of the appellees for the gross sum of $3,470, and the net amount received therefor by the appellees was $2,916.20. The court also found that another contract of shipment, exactly the same in its general provisions as that of May 23, 1901, was entered into between the same parties on June 13, 1901, under similar circumstances, except that it does not appear that the shippers objected to the insertion of the $75 per head valuation; that 28 horses were delivered to the appellant under the latter contract, and were delivered by it in Buffalo, N. Y., on June 16, 1901, in a damaged condition, owing to the negligence of the appellant; that thereafter, on June 17, 1901, the agents of the appellees sold said 28 horses for the gross sum of $3,615, or the net sum of $3,322.70, which latter amount was paid over to the appellees; that, if the horses had been delivered at their destination in good condition, they would have been worth on an average of $170 per head; that all of said horses were handled by the agents of the appellees to the best advantage, and realized their full value in their damaged condition.

The court, upon the foregoing findings of fact, stated its conclusions of law as follows: “(1) The court finds that by the written contract executed May 23, 1901, plaintiffs are concluded as to the number of horses shipped of that date, and that for the purposes of this action, no more than twenty-eight can be considered, and that as to the damages to said two horses, amounting to $205.59, plaintiffs cannot recover. (2) The plaintiffs are not precluded from showing the actual value of said horses at the city of Buffalo at said special sale of May 25, 1901, or their value in said city within a reasonable time for their arrival at said city after their departure from Princeton, but that the damages cannot exceed the sum of twenty-one hundred dollars, with interest added. (3) That the plaintiffs are entitled to recover on the first and third paragraphs of their complaint the sum of two thousand one hundred dollars ($2,100), together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum thereon from date of written notice to the defendant of said injuries; in the aggregate, the sum of $2,195. (4) That the plaintiffs are not precluded from showing the true value of the horses in good condition shipped June 13, 1901, in the city of Buffalo, within a reasonable time for their arrival at said city, from the time of their departure from Princeton, but that the damages for any injury thereto occasioned by defendant's negligence cannot exceed the sum of $2,100. (5) That the plaintiffsare entitled to recover from defendant on account of the injuries complained of in the second paragraph of their complaint the sum of one thousand four hundred and thirty-seven and 30/100 dollars, together with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum thereon since the date of the written notice by plaintiffs to defendant of said injuries; in the aggregate the sum of $1,499.60.”

The questions presented by this appeal are: First. In an action brought by a shipper against a carrier for injury to goods shipped, is the former precluded from showing their real value when he has previously signed a contract for their transportation providing that the carrier shall be liable only for actual damage suffered, and in no event for a greater amount than the valuation of the property declared by the shipper and inserted in the contract? Second. If he is not so precluded, what is the measure of his damages for a partial loss of the goods where they have realized in their damaged condition a sum equal to or greater than their declared value?

The position of the appellant is that, inasmuch as the appellees placed a value upon their own property, they are thereby estopped from proving a greater value; and, if the property in its damaged condition brought the full declared value, interest, and freight...