Wall v. American Railway Express Co.
Decision Date | 04 May 1925 |
Citation | 272 S.W. 76,220 Mo.App. 989 |
Parties | R. W. R. WALL and IRA WALL, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF WALL & SON, A PARTNERSHIP, RESPONDENTS, v. AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS COMPANY, APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Johnson County.--Hon. Ewing Cockrell, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
A. M Hartung and W. E. Suddath for appellant.
Nick M Bradley and M. D. Aber for respondent.
This is a suit for conversion brought in seven counts. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $ 2031.45 and defendant has appealed.
The evidence shows that plaintiffs made a number of shipments of eggs to one Hamilton, doing business as the International Butter Company, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was the intention of plaintiffs to make C. O. D. shipments but there was evidence tending to show that plaintiffs were persuaded by the express company's agent at Denton, Missouri, where the shipments originated, to make the shipments to themselves at Philadelphia, Pa.; to attach to the express receipt a draft on the International Butter Company; to send these to a bank at Philadelphia so that Hamilton upon payment to the bank of the amount of the draft might procure the express receipt and take it to the express company and get the goods. Carrying out this idea, the agent filled out the space in the express receipt under the word "consignee" as follows: " and filled out a shipping tag which was attached to the package reading as follows: Each shipment was made in the manner described and is covered by a separate count in the petition. The express company ignored plaintiffs' instructions concerning the delivery of the eggs and turned over each shipment to the International Butter Company without requiring the production of the express receipt.
Another part of the rules and regulations appears as follows:
The rule of law announced in the Federal courts govern in this case as it involves interstate shipments. [Dunlap v. Railroad, 187 Mo.App. 201, 204.] Under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (Sec. 8569, U.S. Compiled Stat. 1918) the rules and regulations duly published and filed which in any wise affect the rates or the value of the service to be rendered are controlling upon both parties to the shipping contract. [Pioneer Trust Co. v. Railroad, 204 Mo.App. 328, 330, and cases therein cited.]
[Keithley & Quinn v. Lux et al., 190 Mo.App. 458, 470.]
All of that part of the express receipt quoted after the words "Wall & Son" should be disregarded because forbidden by the rules and regulations on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is admitted that provision g headed "Shipments bearing special instructions" has reference to shipments made in the manner in which these were made although they were shipments "to notify" a "person" and the delivery was conditioned upon the surrender of the original receipt at the time of delivery, which in paragraphs b and c as we have quoted them, is prohibited. It is admitted that these shipments come within paragraph g, that is, shipments accepted by the defendant bearing special instructions, and that these instructions were ignored. Paragraph g provides that the express company should be under no responsibility to comply with such instructions nor would any claim be paid for failure to observe or comply with them.
Defendant is not liable for a mistake of the agent where to so hold would nullify the rules and regulations on file, for that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tom Boy Stores v. Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp.
... ... entitled to possession of the asparagus. Wall v. American ... Railway Express Co., 220 Mo.App. 989, 272 S.W. 76; ... ...
-
Turner Lumber & Inv. Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...Continental Natl. Bank v. Trust Co., 4 F.2d 219, 221; In re Taub, 7 F.2d 447, 450; McMahen & Sons v. R. R., 16 F.2d 698, 699; Wall v. Express Co., 220 Mo.App. 989; v. Mo. P. R. R. Co., 110 Wash. 66; Bedig v. So. P. Co., 258 P. 148; Miller v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 200 N.Y.S. 287; 10 C. J., pp.......
- White v. Poole