Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-03-05
COMMON CARRIERS,
Express Companies and Railroads
Rights and Privileges of the Former
that the Latter are
Bound to Respect-Imp0rtant Decision
by Justice Miller, OF the United
States Supreme Court.

KEoKUK, IA, March Al ustice Miller, Of
the United States Supreme Court, has given
his opinion in the following cases: Southern
Express Company Is. The st. Louis, Iron
Mountain and Southern Railroad Company /;
Same rs. the Memphis and Little Rock Rail
road Company; William B. Denston, presi-
dent OF the Adams Express Company a.. the
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Com
pany; Same Us. the Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad Company and Same rs. the
Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Company
Justice Miller gives it as his opinion that
what is known as the express business has,
by the necessities of commerce and usage, be-
came known as a branch OF the carrying
trade different from the transportation OF the
large mass of freight usually carried on
steamers and railroads. That the object OF this
express business Is to carry small and valuable
packages rapidly and in such manner as not
to subject them to loss or damage, which to
a greater or less degree attend the transpor-
tation of heavy, bulky articles. 1t has be-
come law and usage, and is one OF the neces-
sites OF the business, that these packages be
in the immediate care OF messenger or
agent, and to refuse permission to such agent
to accompany these packages on steamboats,
or railroads, and to deny them the right TO
the control of them while so carried is de-
structive of business and of the rights which
this class of transportation. Said company
is no longer liable to ali the obligations OF
common carrier when express matter is
conhded to an agent, but where
loss occurs the exercise of due care
and diligence on the part of the rail-
road company is all that is necessary. I'm
der these circumstances the railroad COM
pany has no right to open or inspect pack
ages, especially when they have been closed
by their owners or by the express carrier.
the justice gives it as his further opinion
that it is the duty of every company to pro-
vide such conveyance, by special cars or
otherwise attached to their freight or pas
senger trains as is required for the safe and
proper transportation of express matter on
their roads, and that the use OF these facill-
ties should be extended on equal terms to all
who are usually and actually engaged in the
express business. Express matter and the
messenger in charge should be carried by
railroads at fair and reasonable rates OF
compensation, and where the parties con-
cerned cannot agree upon what that rate
should be, it is question Tor the courts to
decide.
He was Of opinion that court OF equity,
in a case properly made out, had authority
to compel railroad companies to carry this
express matter, and to perform the duties in
that respect indicated in his opinion, and to
make such DEGREES and orders as are neces-
sary, and to enforce them by ordinary meth
DDS He doubted the right of the court 10
fix, in advance, the precise rate which the
express companies shall pay and railroad
companies shall accept, but had no doubt of its
right to compel the performance OF such serv-
ice by railroad companies, and after it is ZEN
dered TO ascertain reasonable compensation
and to compel its payment; to permit rail-
road companies to fix upon rate OF compen-
sation which is absolute, and in
sisted upon payment in advance, or
at the end of every trip, would be 10
enable them to defeat the just rights OF the
express companies, to destroy their business,
and would be a practical denial Of justice.
Toward this difficulty, Justice Miller thought
the court could assume that the rate or other
mode heretofore existing between such COM
panies is prinla tacie reasonable and just, and
can require the parties to conform to it as
the business progresses, with the right to
either party to keep and present an account
of the business to the court at stated inter-
walls, and claim an addition to or rebate
fromIthe amount so paid. And to secure raul
road companies in any sum which may
be thus found due, bond from
the express company may be required
in advance. When no such arrangement
has heretofore been in existence, it is COM
petent for the court to devise some mode of
compensation, to be paid as the business
progresses, with like power on the final re-
vision of the evidence in reference to the
master, etc.
The opinion of Justice Miller comedies
with the views Of Judge McCrary, given in
former ruling.