Case ID: ohio-st_113/html/0034-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. The Rice Coal Co.
    
      Railroads — Freight and demurrage charges — Consignee liable for reconsignment charges, when.
    
    (No. 18855
    Decided June 2, 1925.)
    Error to the Court of Appeals of Muskingum county.
    Several shipments of coal were made over the Pennsylvania railroad by agents of the defendant in error, each of which consignments was evidenced by a like bill of lading, of which the following is typical, viz: Under the bill of lading the agent of the Rice Coal Company consigned a car of coal to the Valley Cloal Company, at Toledo, “for lake and export shipment.” At the time of the shipment the railroad had no facilities for lake and export shipment at Toledo. Neither the coal company nor its agent had knowledge of that fact, and made no inquiries concerning it. Pursuant to the consignment the car was shipped to Toledo. After arrival at Toledo, and without the knowledge of the agent consignor, or of the coal company, the consignee, the Valley Coal Company, ascertaining that the railroad company had .no facilities for lake or export shipment, reconsigned the car, and requested the railroad company to forward the same to it at Sandusky, Ohio. The railroad company forwarded the same accordingly, with charges for freight and demurrage accruing on the shipment, and following it to its new destination at ¡Sandusky, said charges being paid by the consignee.
    
      Carriers, 10. C. J. § 700 (1926 Anno.).
    
      The Eice Coal Company sued the carrier because of the loss sustained by it in extending credit for such charges and demurrage to the consignee as part payment of the purchase price for the coal, the consignee being compelled to pay the accumulated charges in order to obtain delivery. In the petition of the coal company, the gravamen of the action'was the failure of the railroad company to notify the plaintiff or its agent consignor that it had no facilities at Toledo for lake and export shipments.
    
      Messrs. Meyer & Grossan, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Messrs. Hogan, Hogan, Hogan & Hogan, for defendant in error.
   By the Court.

There is an entire failure of proof showing any liability on the part of the railroad company, the defendant below. We are not even advised by the record whether the carrier had facilities for lake and export shipment at Sandusky, although the fact seems to be assumed in the argument of counsel. Even if it had such facilities, this would not be consequential, since the shipment was made to the destination (Toledo), and to the consignee (the Yalley C'oal Company), designated by the consignor in the bill of lading. Furthermore, since Toledo is a lake port, the; railroad company’s agent may have in good faith believed that the lake shipment was in fact to be from that port. The railroad company would not have been justified, under the bill of lading, in forwarding the car to any other destination than Toledo ; that was the destination designated by the consignor. After its arrival in Toledo the car came under the control of the consignee, who had the right to and did reconsign the shipment to Sandusky. The conceded facts warranted the collection "by the railroad company from the consignee of the freight and demurrage charges.

Under the facts disclosed, we are not called upon to decide whether jurisdiction of the subject-matter rested in the nisi prius court or in the Interstate Commerce Commission. The judgments of the common pleas court and the Court of Appeals are reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error.

Judgments reversed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day and Kinkade, JJ., concur.