Case ID: ala_169/html/0292-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "S'IMPSON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Southern Railway Co. v. Moody.
    
      Damage for Failure to Deliver Freight.
    
    (Decided Dec. 1, 1910.
    53 South. 1016.)
    1. Carriers; Goods; Conversion; Delay. — The carrier is not liable as for converting the goods unreasonably delayed, in the absence of demand for delivery and a refusal thereof while the goods are in its possession.
    2. Damages; Direct or Remote; Breach of Contract. — Damages recoverable for breach of contract are those' flowing naturally and directly from the breach, and special damages are recoverable only when contemplated by the parties, or when within the contemplation of the parties reasonably, at the time the contract was made.
    3. Same. — A carrier is liable for deterioration in goods on account of unreasonable delay, but not for special damages not contemplated at the time of shipment. (In this case deterioration in eggs because of delay in shipment of material to be used in constructing packing boxes.)
    Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.
    Heard before 1-Ion. W. W. Haralson.
    Action by W. L. Moody against the Southern Railway Company for damages for delay in delivery of freight. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
    Beversed and remanded.
    Lawrence E. Brown, for appellant.
    The appellate court Avill not examine into extrinsic facts to see whether or not from the evidence introduced the facts Avere correctly found by the court. In revieAving such judgment the appellate court confines itself to determining whether or not the facts found and set forth in the special finding authorized the judgment rendered. — Ghandler & Jones v. Grossltm'd, 126 Ala. 176. This rule has been changed by statute since the beginning of this case. Counsel then insist that the court’s finding is not Avarranted by the testimony and second, that in its finding it failed to folloAv the correct rule of law as to the measure of damages for the delay in delivering the shipment. — Williams v. A. G. L. R. R. Go., 48 So. 209; Good-id v. So. Ry., 125 Ga. 630; 6 Oyc. 442-444.
    Bilbro & Moody, for appellee.
    No brief reached the Beporter.
   S'IMPSON, J.

This action is by the appellee for damages for failure, on the part of the appellant, a common carrier, to deliver certain goods, to wit, certain, material for constructing shipping boxes for eggs. The facts are that the material in question was delivered to the defendant, at Huntsville, Ala., on June 5, 1906, for shipment to the plaintiff, at Scottsboro, Ala.; that on the 11th day of June, the goods not having been delivered, the plaintiff brought this suit; that on the 12th day of June the goods arrived and were tendered to the plaintiff, hut he refused to receive the same, as he had already ordered hv telephone and received, other material and shipped his eggs. There Avas a train each day from Huntsville to Scottsboro, leaving at 10:35 a. m., and reaching- Scottsboro at 2:50 p. m. Over the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff, while on the stand as a witness, was allowed to testify that “in June eggs will depreciate 20 per cent.” The court, trying the case without a jury, made a special finding of the facts, and rendered a judgment against the defendant for $20.

The decisions of this court are clear to the effect that the damages recoverable for the breach of a contract must be those which flow directly and naturally from the breach, and that any special damages claimed must be shown to have been within the contemplation of the parties at the time of making the contract. — Nichols v. Rasch, 138 Ala. 372, 35 South. 409; Ala. Chemical Co. v. Geiss, 143 Ala. 591, 39 South. 255; Southern Railway Co. v. Coleman, 153 Ala. 266, 44 South. 837. Although the delivery of goods be delayed for an unreasonable time, the carrier cannot be charged for the conversion of the goods, unless demand has been made and refused while the goods are in its possession. Its only liability is for damages caused by the deterioration in value of the goods themselves during the time of delay. — 2 Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) p. 717, § 651; 6 Cyc. 442, 444, 449. The Supreme Court of Florida has had occasion to consider a case very similar to the one now under consideration, where a carrier was sued for delay in delivering orange boxes, and damages were claimed on account of the shipper’s not being able to pack and ship his oranges for the Christmas market; and that court held that, in order to hold the common carrier liable for such damages, the carrier should have been notified, at the time of shipment, of the peculiar facts and circumstances. — Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co., 56 Fla. 735, 48 South. 209, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 134, 131 Am. St. Rep. 169. It follows that the court erred in permitting proof of the deterioration in the eggs.

There was no claim in the complaint for special damages, and no proof of general damages. The judgment of the court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Dowdell, C. J., and McClellan and Mayfield, JJ., concur.