Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-03-30
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Question of Interest to Every Railroad
Company and shipper in Texas.
The Case in Question Is Plaintiffs Refusal to
fuse to Protect False Bill of Lading.


! of the United States for the Eastern dis
trict of Arkansas decides question of
interest to every railroad company and
every shipper in Texas. The facts in
the case calling for the courts decision
may be briefly summarized as follows:
On August %, 1889, the Iven & Son
machinery company, consignors at New
Orleans, delivered to the Louisville, New
Orleans aud Texas railway company six
steam cotton presses for transportation
from that point to the plaintiff,
Thomas w. Baird, at Little
| Rock, Ark. to he transported over
the above-named railroad and its con-
nection. the st. Louis, Iron Mountain
| and Southern railway. The cOnsigners
made out the bill of lading
and inserted the weight therein
| as 20 600 pounds. The consgnee
accepted this weight without question.
| 1t vas afterwards found that the ac-
| tual weight of said freight was % $50
pounds, or $3.50 pounds more than that
shown by the bill. of lading. The
charges on said shipment We're $50, and
! the rate for through shipment from
| New Orleans to Little Rock was forty
| five cents per 100 pounds. After weigh
| luz Sttlu Tile LOUISVILLE new
| Orleans and Texas shipped it over its
| line to Little Rock, via Huntington,
under billing showing the true weight.
It was forwarded from Huntington by
the st. Louis, Iron Mountain and South
| ern under this latter billing.
Upon its arrival in Little Rock the
| defendant road, the st. Louis, Iron
| Mountain aud Southern, presented its
| bill for advance charges and freight at
the rate of forty-tive cents per 100
pounds for %, $50 pounds, making
the entire freight bill Sl49 So.
The plaintiff refused 20 pay said freight
| bill and charges, but presented his bill of
ladlng and offered to pay the charges
and freight shown thereon, according to
the weight of 20 GOO pounds. at forty
five cents per 100 rounds, which equaled
the sum of 1925, and demanded that I'M
der the statutes of Arkansas defendant
should protect said bill of lading. The
defendant refused, and demanded that
plaintiff pay according to the actual
weight as shown by the billing and re-
weighing of the freight in question. This
Baird refused to do, whereupOn defend
ant refused TO honor said bill of ladng.
The case in question is the result of
PLAINTIFFS refusal to pay for the actual
weight, and of defendants refusal to
protect false bill of lRding.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
Caldwell: The bill of lading was filled
up by the consPnors and signed by the
railroad company on the faith that the
consignors had stated truly the weight of
the machinery. Either fraudulently, or
by mistake, the consignors stated the
weight of the machinery to be $3.50
pounds less than it was.
The contention of the plaintiff is that
By statute of this state he is entitled to
profit by this fraud or mistake; that un-
der the statute bill of lading procured
by mistake or fraud is as binding and
obligatory as one honestly procured.
OF course the statute is not susceptible
of such construction. The statute was
passed to prevent fraud. not to promote
it, TO punish fraud, not to sanction it.
If the bill of lading, by fraud or mis-
take of the company, had stated the
weight of the machinery to be twice as
great as it was, the attitude of the plain
tiff would not be what it now is And
yet if frauds and mistakes in bills of lad
ing are to stand as absolute verify, the |
rule ought - be mutual aud bind the
Cousignee as well as the carrier.
This case probably furnishes the first
example of a party coming into court
of justice and boldly claiming benefit
from confessed fraud or mistake
The through rate of freight is stated in
the bill of ladiug to be 40 cents per 100 |
pounds. That is the mutual part of the |
bill of lGding on the subject OF freight to |
be paid for transporting the machinery
In the language of the statute, that Is |
the ''sum for transporting said freight |
specified in the bill OF lading. - About |
that there was contract. there was no |
contract about the weight of the freight |
Bills of lading are frequently issued be- |
fore the weight of the freight is known. |
1t is not necessary to the issuance of q |
bill of lading that it should be known. |
The freight rate is fixed when the rate |
per 100 pounds is agreed on. Weighing |
the freight is purely a mechanical pro-
cess; it may be done at the point of ship |
meni or at the point of delivery, or both. |
One hundred pounds in New Orleans is |
one hundred pounds in Little Rock, |
neither more nor less.
Where, as in this case, the weight of |
the merchandise is Interchangeable. the |
carrier or the consignee may ask to have |
the weight verified up to the moment /
of delivery.
The machinery weighed 25, $50 pounds, I
and no agreement of the parties could |
add to or diminish this weight, nor could |
il be varied by fraud or mistake.
But if the act of the legislature would |
admit of the construction cOntended for
by the plaintiff, it would avail him 10th |
ing.
The shipment of this freight from New |
Orleans to Little Rock was interstate |
commerce, ami the act of commerce is
controlling. II is not necessary to quote
that act; it is sufficient to say that |
if the defendant had delivered and the /
plaintiff received this freight with /
knowledge of the facts as they are set |
ont in the agreed statement of facts, the |
agent of the defendant making the de-
livery, the plaintiff and consignors, If |
they had knowledge of the fact, would |
have been guilty of fragrant violation of |
the interstate commerce act, and rem
dered themselves liable TO criminal prose-
cutlon.
Let judgment be entered for defendant |
for q return of the property OF its value |
and for costs.