Virginia & S. W. R. Co. v. Sutherland

• Decision Date: 20 October 1917
• Citation: 197 S.W. 863
• Parties: VIRGINIA & S. W. R. CO. v. SUTHERLAND.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

197 S.W. 863

VIRGINIA & S. W. R. CO. v. SUTHERLAND.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 20, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Johnson County; Dana Harmon, Judge.

Action by R. H. Sutherland against the Virginia & Southwestern Railroad Company. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, affirming the judgment of the circuit court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Harr & Burrow, of Johnson City, and Donnelly & Donnelly, of Mountain City, for Va. & S. W. Ry. Co. Butler & Donnelly, of Mountain City, for R. H. Sutherland.

WILLIAMS, J.

Sutherland, the appellee, is a dealer in cattle. Desiring to ship a load of cattle to the eastern market, he delivered same to defendant company at Shoun, a station in Johnson county, and billed them to "M. H. Grube & Co., Philadelphia, Pa.," and caused to be written on the face of the bill of lading by the company's agent the words: "Off at Lancaster for feed and water." In fact M. H. Grube & Co. were engaged in the cattle business at Lancaster, Pa., not Philadelphia. The shipper directed a delivery of the cattle to this firm at Lancaster, and intermediate point on the route, which was in fact the intended market. The purpose of the shipper was to have the cattle unloaded at Lancaster, where they were to be sold by Grube & Co., and the trip continued for such of the cattle as were fit for the Philadelphia market. Eighteen of the 33 animals were "feeders," for which there was no market in Philadelphia. Instead of stopping the cattle at Lancaster the load was taken through to Philadelphia, where a quarantine was in force. By reason of the existence of the quarantine, the cattle could not be returned to Lancaster, and they were forced to sale on the Philadelphia market, bringing materially less than they would have brought at Lancaster. Grube & Co. were to receive the cattle on consignment, and not as purchasers.

For 15 years Sutherland had made shipments and sales in this manner, and this was the first instance of a failure to make delivery to the consignees at Lancaster; there was never any question concerning same raised by the railway company at the time.

The action is for a recovery of the difference in the market values at the two places, and both the circuit judge and the Court of Civil Appeals have sustained Sutherland's suit. The railway company asks at our hands a reversal of the judgment.

One of the errors assigned by the railway company is that as the contract of shipment called for a terminal delivery at Philadelphia, and that since the cattle were transported to and delivered at that place, there can be no recovery for a failure to deliver at Lancaster. Direction by the shipper for a Lancaster delivery having been given, the law does not support this contention of the carrier.

The shipper or owner does not renounce his right of all control over the goods by a delivery of same to a common carrier. The latter stands in the relation of one employed as bailee of the goods for the purpose of obeying such instructions of the true owner regarding them, and the owner has the right to have the goods stopped or diverted at any intermediate point through which they are to pass to the destination named in the bill of lading. It is not true, as urged by the carrier in this case, that it was only bound to deliver the cattle according to the owner's first directions or according to a recitation in the bill of lading as to final...