Victor Produce Co. v. W. Transit Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 19977[111].,19977[111].
• Citation: 135 Minn. 121,160 N.W. 248
• Parties: VICTOR PRODUCE CO. v. WESTERN TRANSIT CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

135 Minn. 121

160 N.W. 248

VICTOR PRODUCE CO.

v.WESTERN TRANSIT CO.

No. 19977[111].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 15, 1916.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; H. A. Dancer, Judge.

Action by the Victor Produce Company against the Western Transit Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals from an order denying new trial. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Plaintiff shipped a carload of freight from Mankato to Duluth over the Omaha Railway which delivered it to plaintiff at the latter place. Plaintiff then delivered it to defendant for transportation from Duluth to Hartford, Conn., and defendant issued a through bill of lading therefor. It was damaged after defendant had delivered it to a connecting carrier. The Omaha Company did not undertake to cause the shipment to be carried beyond Duluth and did not know that it was to be carried beyond that point. Held, that defendant was the initial carrier within the purview of the Carmack Amendment (Act Cong. June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. 595 [U. S. Comp. St. 1913, § 8592]).

As the court adopted the correct rule for measuring the damages, whether the consignee at Hartford rejected the shipment without sufficient ground therefor is immaterial. William Furst, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Benj. M. Goldberg and J. A. P. Neal, both of Duluth, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff delivered a carload of eggs to defendant for transportation from Duluth, Minn., to Hartford, Conn., and received from defendant a ‘through’ bill of lading therefor. Defendant transported them by boat from Duluth to Buffalo, and connecting carriers transported them by rail from that point to their destination. Statements in the testimony indicate that they were damaged in a wreck before reaching Hartford. On account of their broken and damaged condition, the consignees refused to receive them from the railway company, and the railway company sold them and accounted to plaintiff for the proceeds of the sale, less the expense of making it. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant as the initial carrier, for the damages sustained on account of the breakage and recovered a verdict. Defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial.

[1] The action is based on the federal statute, known as the Carmack Amendment, which makes the initial carrier responsible to the shipper for damage to the property while in transit whether such damage occurred upon its own line or upon the...