Vincent v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co

• Decision Date: 22 May 1905
• Docket Number: 15,466
• Citation: 114 La. 1021,38 So. 816
• Parties: VINCENT & HAYNE v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

38 So. 816

114 La. 1021

VINCENT & HAYNE v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO

No. 15,466

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 22, 1905

Rehearing denied June 19, 1905.

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King Judge.

Action by Vincent & Hayne against the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Gustave Lemle and Hunter Collins Leake (J. M. Dickinson, of counsel) for appellant.

Branch Knox Miller, for appellees.

OPINION

MONROE J.

Statement of the Case.

Plaintiffs bring this suit against the delivering carrier for $ 2,104.99 as the loss resulting from the damaged condition, when delivered, of certain lots of cotton shipped from Homer and Ruston, La., and Magnolia, Ark., to New Orleans. They allege that the cotton was in good order when shipped, that through bills of lading were issued for it as in that condition, that drafts were drawn on and paid by them on the faith of said bills, and that it was delivered in bad order; and they pray for judgment.

Defendant, for answer, alleges that it received the cotton in question from the Louisiana & Northwestern and the Arkansas Southern Railroad Companies, in sealed cars, for transportation to New Orleans, and transported it in said cars to its place of destination, and there unloaded and delivered it, under sheds, to the plaintiffs, on presentation of the bills of lading properly indorsed; that said companies are connecting carriers, and that under the Constitution and laws of this state the defendant was obliged to receive and handle said cars, and is not liable for damages sustained by the cotton therein contained before such receipt; and it specially denies that any damage was thereafter sustained. Defendant further denies that it is bound by the bills of lading issued by said connecting carriers, and alleges that, if it were so bound, said bills provide that the carrier in whose possession the property may be when damaged shall alone be liable for such damage. The defendant also pleads the prescription of one year, and there is a further defense set up, which was subsequently waived, and need not be considered.

The record contains an agreement, which we quote and summarize as follows, to wit:

"It is agreed that this case shall be submitted on the following admissions and such other evidence as either party may desire to introduce when the case is called for trial in open court. Both plaintiff and defendant do hereby make the following admissions, to wit."

Here follow the admissions: (1) That Hermann Loeb, upon certain dates, shipped, by the Louisiana & Northwestern Railroad Company (otherwise herein called the "L. & N.W. R. Co."), and by the Arkansas Southern Railroad Company (otherwise herein called the "A. S. R. Co."), from Homer and Ruston, La., and Magnolia, Ark., certain specified lots of cotton, which were the property of plaintiffs, and that the shipments "were made to order notify Vincent & Hayne, New Orleans, La."

(2) That part of the cotton was shipped by the L. & N.W. R. Co. under bills of lading similar to Bill A, annexed, and that the defendant "was no party to the said contract and had no knowledge thereof."

(3) That part of the cotton was shipped by the A. S. R. Co. under bills of lading similar to the Bill B, annexed, and that the defendant "was no party to the said contract and had no knowledge thereof."

(4) That the lines of railway either owned or operated by the L. & N.W. R. Co. do not extend from Magnolia, Ark., to New Orleans, La.

(5) That the lines of railway either owned or operated by the A. S. R. Co. do not extend from Ruston, La., to New Orleans, La.

(6) That it was necessary for both said companies, in order to carry out their contracts to transport cotton to New Orleans, to deliver such cotton en route to some other connecting carrier or carriers whose lines extend to that city.

(7) That said companies delivered the cotton in question at a point en route to the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railroad Company (otherwise herein called the "V. S. & P. R. Co."), which company delivered it, in the same box cars in which it was originally loaded, to defendant, whose lines extend from said point to New Orleans, and who at that time paid all charges and freight due thereon; and that defendant transported it to New Orleans, La., in the cars in which it was received by it.

(8) That the cars in which the cotton was loaded and transported were in good order and condition, and the doors and windows properly sealed; that the seals were in the same condition at the time the cars were unloaded at New Orleans as when originally placed; "and that the doors and windows of the cars were not opened en route."

(9) That the defendant delivered the cotton within a reasonable time after its receipt, and from the same cars in which it was brought to New Orleans.

(10) That the L. & N.W. R. Co. and the A. S. R. Co. are common carriers doing business in Louisiana; that the lines of each extend from a point in Arkansas to Homer and Ruston, in Louisiana, at which last-mentioned points the cotton in question was delivered to the V. S. & P. R. Co.; that the V S. & P. R. Co. is a common carrier which owns and operates a road from Homer and Ruston, La., to Vicksburg, Miss., at which latter point said cotton was delivered to defendant; and...