Western Transit Company v. Leslie Company
| Decision Date | 08 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 104,104 |
| Citation | 242 U.S. 448,61 L.Ed. 423,37 S.Ct. 133 |
| Parties | WESTERN TRANSIT COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. A. C. LESLIE & COMPANY, Limited |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Lester F. Gilbert for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Daniel J. Kenefick and Charles B. Sears for defendant in error.
The Western Transit Company, operating steamers between Buffalo and other points on the Great Lakes, formed, with the New York Central Railroad, a 'lake and rail' line between Michigan and New York city. Among the privileges and facilities offered by this line was the right 'in transit of free storage and diversion at Buffalo.' That is, the shipper, instead of sending his goods from Michigan through to New York city, was entitled, without the payment of any extra charge, to have them stored at Buffalo for a period, to await further orders, and be forwarded later to New York. The shipper was also given the privilege of 'diversion,' that is, of changing the ultimate destination of the stored goods upon proper adjustment of the rate. On September 23, 1908, A. C. Leslie & Company, Limited, the plaintiff below, delivered to the Western Transit Company, the defendant below, at Houghton, Michigan, for shipment over this line to New York city, 25 tons of copper ingots, with direction to store the same upon arrival at Buffalo to await further shipping directions. The copper arrived there September 30, and was placed in the Transit Company's warehouse. Nearly four months later about one ton of it was stolen from the warehouse. An action was brought by the shipper in the city court of Buffalo to recover its value. The Transit Company denied all liability; but the court found that the loss was due to its negligence, and held the company liable for the full value of the copper lost. The judgment of the city court was affirmed by the supreme court of New York at special term, and also by the appellate division of that court. (165 App. Div. 947, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1073.) Applications for an appeal to the court of appeals of New York having been denied, both by the appellate division and by the chief judge of the court of appeals, a writ of error to this court was granted on the ground that the decision below involved a Federal question, namely: the construction and effect of the bill of lading and of tariffs filed under the Act to Regulate Commerce as amended. (Act June 29, 1906, chap. 3591, 34 Stat. at L. 584, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8563.)
The question before this court relates solely to the measure of damages. The shipper contends that it is entitled to the full value of the copper lost, which was $271.38. The carrier contends that the damages recoverable are limited to $94.10; that is, the value not to exceed $100 a ton. In support of this limitation it relies upon the fact that freight was paid at the rate of 18 cents per ton under a bill of lading and a tariff which names the following rates from Houghton, Michigan, to New York city: The shipper insists that it is enforcing the liability of the Transit Company not as carrier, but as warehouseman; and that the terms of its obligation as warehouseman are fixed, not by the bill of lading and the tariff provision quoted above, but wholly by the letter of November 26, 1908, and the circular therein referred to, which are copied in the margin.1
The Transit Company filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, in addition to its general tariffs covering 'lake and rail' rates, a separate tariff known as I. C. C. No. 236, covering specifically storage and diversion privileges at Buffalo, as set forth in the circular copied in the margin. The filing of this tariff was required by the act (see Goldenberg v. Clyde S. S. Co. 20 Inter. Com. Rep. 527), since the general tariff did not specify the detail of the storage and diversion privileges. The Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended, provides vides expressly (§ 1) that the term 'transportation' includes storage. And § 6 (Comp. St. 1913, § 8569) provides that a carrier must file with the Interstate Commerce Commission tariffs 'showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation,' and 'shall also state separately all . . . storage charges, . . . all privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules or regulations which in any wise change, affect, or determine any part or the aggregate of such aforesaid rates.'
The bill of lading, in a form similar to that approved and recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission (14 Inters. Com. Rep. 346), contains the following, among other provisions:
'It is mutually agreed in consideration of the rate of freight hereinafter named, as to each carrier of all or any of said property over all or any portion of said route to destination and as to each party at any time interested in all or any of said property, that every service to be performed hereunder shall be subject to all the conditions, whether printed or written, herein contained, and which are hereby agreed to by the shipper, and by him accepted for himself and his assigns as just and reasonable.'
* * * * *
'To be held at Bflo. for orders.
'The consignor of this property has the option of shipping same at a higher rate without limitation as to value in case of loss or damage from causes which would make the carrier liable, but agrees to the specified valuation named in case of loss or damage from causes which would make the carrier liable, because of the lower rate thereby accorded for transportation.'
* * * * *
'The amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier becomes liable shall be computed at the value of the property at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, unless a lower value has been agreed upon or is determined by the classification upon which the rate is based, in either of which events such lower value shall be the maximum price to govern such computation.'
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. MERCHANTS'NAT. BANK, 1703.
... ... account standing in the name of Securities Exchange Company, the title under which Charles Ponzi did business, the sum ... ...
-
THE FERNCLIFF
...by the damage per ton, which in this case, on the basis of the contract price, was $7.50. See Western Transit Co. v. Leslie & Co. 242 U.S. 448, 454, 37 S.Ct. 133, 61 L.Ed. 423. In operation the clause only eliminates prospective profit, and limits the damage to the owner's actual loss in th......
-
Cicardi Brothers Fruit & Produce Company v. Pennsylvania Company
... ... So. Ry. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U.S. 632, 60 L.Ed. 836, ... 839; Western Transit Co. v. Leslie, 22 U.S. 448, 61 ... L.Ed. 423, 427. (4) The tariffs and regulations ... ...
-
Rice & Lockwood Lumber Co. v. Boston & M.R.R.
...Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190, 36 S.Ct. 541, 60 L.Ed. 948;Western Transit Co. v. A. C. Leslie & Co., Ltd., 242 U.S. 448, 37 S.Ct. 133, 61 L.Ed. 423;Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Ward, 244 U.S. 383, 37 S.Ct. 617, 61 L.Ed. 1213;Chicago & Northwest......