Wichita Poultry Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., No. 12505.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtEllison
Citation197 Mo. App. 578,198 S.W. 82
PartiesWICHITA POULTRY CO. v. SOUTHERN PAC. RY. CO.
Docket NumberNo. 12505.
Decision Date11 June 1917
198 S.W. 82
197 Mo. App. 578
WICHITA POULTRY CO.
v.
SOUTHERN PAC. RY. CO.
No. 12505.
Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.
June 11, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Kimbrough Stone, Judge.

Action by the Wichita Poultry Company against the Southern Pacific Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Watson, Gage & Watson, of Kansas City, for appellant. Hal R. Lebrecht and A. J. Bolinger, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.


Plaintiff shipped a carload of chickens from Wichita, Kan., to San Francisco, Cal., consigned to its agents Stewart & Stevens, a commission firm in the latter city. There was delay in delivery, and this action was instituted to recover damages. Plaintiff prevailed in the trial court.

The case was tried by the court on an agreed statement of facts, by which it appeared that the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company was the initial carrier, and defendant the destination, or terminal, carrier. That, while the chickens were on the way, Stewart & Stevens sold them to Fred Deal at Oakland, Cal., and notified plaintiff, who immediately gave an order, by telegraph, to divert the shipment to Deal at Oakland, and this order was complied with by defendant. But 35 hours before the car arrived at Oakland, Deal had notified Stewart & Stevens that he would not accept the chickens, and they then asked defendant's division freight agent at San Francisco to continue the shipment to them at San Francisco as originally billed. They had authority from plaintiff to divert shipments, but defendant had no notice of such authority, or that they were even plaintiff's agents, further than that they were merely consignees. This agent said he would do it, and handed the request to defendant's agent in the operating department, who informed him that it could not be complied with. No notice of this refusal was given to Stewart & Stevens, and the car was duly set out at Oakland, and Deal notified next morning. He still refused to take it, and defendant's agent at Oakland immediately, by telegraph, asked for orders from the initial carrier at Wichita, and, in response, was directed to comply with Stewart & Stevens' request to continue the shipment to them at San Francisco, the original destination, and this was done. It was agreed that the damages caused by this delay was $500, and that, if the finding was for plaintiff, it should be in that sum.

While the law is that the consignee may be regarded by the carrier as the owner, nothing appearing to the contrary (Smith v. Railroad, 145 Mo. App. 394, 406, 122 S. W. 342; Southern Exp. Co. v. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549, 24 L. Ed. 285; 1 Hutchinson on Carriers, § 177), yet, where the carrier knows the shipper to be the owner (as in this case), he is bound to recognize the right of such owner to give orders diverting the shipment, while en route, to any other person than the one named as consignee in the bill of lading (2 Hutchinson on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 6, 1936
    ...54, 177 N.E. 306; State v. Murphy, 154 La. 190, 97 So. 397; People v. Radeloff, 252 N.Y.S. 290, 140 Misc.; State v. Burris, 198 Iowa 1156, 198 S.W. 82; Eaton v. State, 140 So. 722; Bishop v. State, 96 Miss. 846, 52 So. 21; Coon v. State, 12 S. & M. 246; McCann v. State, 13 S. & M. 471; 2 A.......
  • McNeill v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 16249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 3, 1921
    ...loc. cit. 406, 407, 122 S. W. 342; Hutchinson on Carriers, vol. 1, § 177, vol. 2, § 736; Wichita Poultry Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 197 Mo. App. 578, 198 S. W. 82; Cooper v. Bank of British North America (C. C.) 30 Fed. 171; Bank of British North America v. Cooper, 137 U. S. 473, 11 Sup.......
  • Glass v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., No. 8904
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 5, 1970
    ...defendant's liability, we must judge of its action from the standpoint of its knowledge.' Wichita Poultry Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 197 Mo.App. 578, 580, 198 S.W. All of plaintiff's dealings with the defendant's agents concerned a shipment of goods (part of which plaintiff admittedly di......
  • Knoell v. Kansas City, C. C. & St. J. Ry. Co., No. 12378.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 5, 1917
    ...462; White v. Ry., 132 Mo. App. 339, 112 S. W. 278. Criticisms of plaintiff's instructions are made by defendants; but, after a careful 198 S.W. 82 examination, we find no merit in such The judgment is affirmed. All concur. ...
4 cases
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 6, 1936
    ...54, 177 N.E. 306; State v. Murphy, 154 La. 190, 97 So. 397; People v. Radeloff, 252 N.Y.S. 290, 140 Misc.; State v. Burris, 198 Iowa 1156, 198 S.W. 82; Eaton v. State, 140 So. 722; Bishop v. State, 96 Miss. 846, 52 So. 21; Coon v. State, 12 S. & M. 246; McCann v. State, 13 S. & M. 471; 2 A.......
  • McNeill v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 16249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • May 3, 1921
    ...loc. cit. 406, 407, 122 S. W. 342; Hutchinson on Carriers, vol. 1, § 177, vol. 2, § 736; Wichita Poultry Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 197 Mo. App. 578, 198 S. W. 82; Cooper v. Bank of British North America (C. C.) 30 Fed. 171; Bank of British North America v. Cooper, 137 U. S. 473, 11 Sup.......
  • Glass v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., No. 8904
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 5, 1970
    ...defendant's liability, we must judge of its action from the standpoint of its knowledge.' Wichita Poultry Co. v. Southern Pac. Ry. Co., 197 Mo.App. 578, 580, 198 S.W. All of plaintiff's dealings with the defendant's agents concerned a shipment of goods (part of which plaintiff admittedly di......
  • Knoell v. Kansas City, C. C. & St. J. Ry. Co., No. 12378.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 5, 1917
    ...462; White v. Ry., 132 Mo. App. 339, 112 S. W. 278. Criticisms of plaintiff's instructions are made by defendants; but, after a careful 198 S.W. 82 examination, we find no merit in such The judgment is affirmed. All concur. ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT