Yazoo Co v. Nichols Co

Decision Date01 June 1921
Docket NumberNo. 216,216
Citation65 L.Ed. 1081,41 S.Ct. 549,256 U.S. 540
PartiesYAZOO & M. V. R. CO. et al. v. NICHOLS & CO
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Charles N. Burch, of Memphis, Tenn., for petitioners.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 540-543 intentionally omitted] Messrs. J. W. Cutrer, of Clarksdale, Miss., and Frederick S. Tyler, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In November, 1917 the Yazoo & Mississippi Railroad Company issued to Nichols & Co. a bill of lading for 31 bales of cotton which had been loaded into a box car at Alligator, Miss., for shipment to Memphis, Tenn. Before the loaded car had been attached to any train or engine it was destroyed by fire. The shipper sued in a state court of Mississippi to recover the value of the cotton. The carrier contended that by the terms of the bill of lading it was relieved from liability. The provision relied upon was the second clause of the last paragraph of section 5 of the Uniform Bill of Lading, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission June 27, 1908, and duly filed and published as part of the railroad's tariff. The paragraph referred to is this:

'Property destined to or taken from a station, wharf, or landing at which there is no regularly appointed agent, shall be entirely at risk of owner after unloaded from cars or vessels or until loaded into cars or vessels and when received or delivered on private or other sidings, wharves or landings shall be at owners' risk until the cars are attached to and after they are detached from trains.'

The shippers insisted that the provision did not apply, because at Alligator there was a regularly appointed agent, and that the second clause of the paragraph, like the first, was applicable only to stations where there was none. The shippers also contended, on the following facts which were undisputed, that the place where the car was received was, in effect, a part of the carrier's terminal, and not a 'private or other' siding within the meaning of the above provision.

The cotton had been loaded from the platform of a gin located at the blind end of a spur which leads from the main line at a point near the depot. The spur, which is 1,000 feet long, had been built by the railroad many years before at its own expense. About half of it is on the railroad right of way, and runs parallel to the main line; the rest is on private land. Under the contract for building the spur the landowner furnished free the right of way over his own land; but the railroad was to have full control over the spur, and reserved the right to abandon it at any time and remove the track material. The spur was used generally by the public for loading and unloading carload freight. The only track scale at Alligator was on it—as was also another gin.

Each party requested a directed verdict. A verdict was directed for the shippers. The judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi on the ground that the clause in question applies only to stations at which there is no regularly appointed agent. 120 Miss. 690, 83 South. 5. In the appellate courts of the states in which the question had arisen the decisions were conflicting.1 For this reason a writ of certiorari was granted. 251 U. S. 550, 40 Sup. Ct. 219, 64 L. Ed. 409. The only question requiring decision here is whether the court below gave the correct construction to the clause. In our opinion it did.

Whether goods destroyed, lost or damaged while at a railroad station were then in the possession of the carrier as such, so as to subject it to liability in the absence of negligence, had, before the adoption of the Uniform Bill of Lading, been the subject of much litigation. At stations where there is a regularly appointed agent the field for controversy could be narrowed by letting the execution of a bill of lading or receipt evidence delivery to and acceptance by the carrier; and by letting delivery of goods to the consignee be evidenced by surrender of the bill or execution of a consignee's receipt. But at nonagency stations this course is often not feasible. There the field for controversy as to the facts was particularly inviting and the reasons persuasive for limiting the carrier's liability. Local freight trains are often late. Shippers or consignees cannot be expected to attend on their arrival. Less than carload freight awaiting shipment must ordinarily be left on the station platform to be picked up by the passing train and lots arriving must be dropped on the platform to be called for by the consignee. At such stations the situation in respect to carload freight is not materially different. And this is true whether the car be loaded for shipment on the public siding or on a neighboring private siding, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Louisville & NR Co. v. Brittain
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 8, 1937
    ......        Appellant makes much of the fact that the station at Blount Springs is a nonagency one, Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Ry. Co. v. Nichols & Co., 256 U.S. 540, 41 S.Ct. 549, 65 L.Ed. 1081; Columbia Motors Co. v. Ada County, 42 Idaho 678, 247 P. ......
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 2, 1925
    ...... risk until the cars are attached to and after they are. detached from trains, or until loaded and after unloaded from. vessels.' Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Nichols & Co.,. 256 U.S. 540, 41 S.Ct. 549, 65 L.Ed. 1081. . . Usage. or custom having force and effect of law or ......
  • Charles J. Webb & Sons v. Central R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • December 9, 1929
    ......E. 463; Schmidt v. C. & N. W. R., 90 Wis. 504, 63 N. W. 1057; Hill Mfg. Co. v. New Orleans, M. & C. R. R., 117 Miss. 548, 78 So. 187; Adair v. Yazoo, etc., R. R. Co., 142 Miss. 345, 107 So. 371. It does not, indeed, follow that this is so when his first service is "accessorial," and it is true ...V. R. R. Co. v. Nichols, 256 U. S. 540, 41 S. Ct. 549, 65 L. Ed. 1081, the first part of the clause was said to apply to less than carload lots and the second to carload, ......
  • St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Lee Wilson & Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • December 8, 1947
    ......4, paragraph "f", of the contract of shipment appearing on the back of the bill of lading. The case of Chickasaw Cooperage Co. v. Yazoo & M. V. Ry. Co., 141 Ark. 71, 215 S.W. 897, is said to be authority for defendant's contention. In that case the commodity was destroyed by fire, ...Two years later the U. S. Supreme Court placed a different construction on the identical provision in the case of Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Nichols & Co., 256 U.S. 540, 41 S.Ct. 549, 551, 65 L.Ed. 1081. The court held that the second clause of the provision of the bill of lading, like the first, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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