Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-27
IS IMPORTANT TO SHIPPERS.
The Eject of the Supreme Courts
Decision I'm Richmond Case,

Decision I'm Richmond Case.
The decision rendered on Monday by
the Supreme Court Of the United States
in the case OF the Richmond and Alle-
ghany Railroad Company VS.. r. A. Pat
terson Tobacco Company, briefly reported
in yesterdays Dispatch. is one of consid-
cradle Importance to the business COM
munity.
Tho tobacco company shipped a lot or
goods at Richmond, consigned to parties
at Bayou Sara, La These goods were de-
livered to the Richmond and Alleghanv
Railroad Company, who issued a through
bill of lading for same. This bill of lading
was accepted but not signed by the ship
per- 1t contained among other conditions,
a clause exempting the Allegheny road
from liability for any loss or damage &C
curing after the property should be sately
delivered to a connecting carrier The TO-
bacco was accordingly taken TO the Ter
minus of the Allegheny road, and there
turned over in good condition TO the sue
ceedng carrier for further transportation.
Part of the route was by water from N t'
Orleans to Bayou Sara, and the SOouS
were lost somewhere on the MISSISSIPPI
river. The Patterson Tobacco Company
thereupon made demand on the Alleghany
railroad for the value Of the property 30
lost, and payment being refused, TINS sun
Richmond.
The action was brought under section
1895 of the Code Of Virginia, whlch reaos.
when a common carrier accepts III
TRANSPORTATION anything directed 70
noint of destination beyond the terminus
az his own line or route he shall be DEEM
ed thereby TO assume an obhgatlon LOT ils'
safe carriage to such point OF desthatlon'
unless. at the time of such acceptance,
such carrier be released or exempted ltonl
such liability by contract IN wTitils sis sI-
ed by the owner or his agent; ana, al
though there be such contract IN Wnllls'
~ such thing be lost or injured. such com-
mon carrier shall himself be hapie lhs st
for. unless. within reasonable time a .-'I
demand made he shall give Satisfactory
nrooS ~ the consignor that the loss or IN
Jury did not occur while the tning WAS IN
his charge"
WHAT THE CONVENTIONS WE'RE
The PLAINTIFF company. therefore, con-
tended that as the bill OF ladlng IN quees,,
ton was not signed by them, .ne in p,Ie,,.
carrier was liable under this statute, even
though the loss occurred oeyohu '"0
minus of it's own line. .ho
The railroad company insisted, on .nv
other hand that in the absence OF any
statute. the initial carrier would uIly ~. ve
responsible for loss or damage uPo !..i "a
own road. and that this stature tss sN roads
ing its liability to loss on olner lot aus.
was unconstitutional and VOID. IN 50 ISl
&C n applied to shipments or piopeIy
destined beyond the limits OF ~ = li1 a.,
that the Federal Constitution vests -
CONGRESS the exclusive power 70 sul ls
'.o,,a7,, cree With foreign nations ana
enonp the several States" and tnat .ne
State legislature was, therefore, lncoin-
petent to deal with the suOlect VI ,';ao.
state commerce.; that bills OF IauIns uSans
a necessary instrumentality VI $3.50 to,
anv law i'm respect to them except ~
shinments inside the State) is an atteinp,s .S
raouIation of interstate comIuercS, on on,
renugnant TO the United States Oohs'l-
tuition. .,es 60 +bts aro11-
dne ,-as that the provision of our code
fsection 12qO was not intended 10 De- anu
does not operate as regulation Vi III III,
merce in any proper sense Duu .,, 5lp ~
furnishes a rule of evidence by WhlSh "
ascertain the terms Of the contract pc
tveen the parties, and that it was per
fectlv competent for a State 10 leslslate
touc6ing the proof and authenticity Oh
contracts made within its limits.
WON IN THREE COURTS.
The Circuit Court Judge Wexford
Tohaceo Company, the defendant TOOK
the case to the Court of Appeals or Nir-
einia. where II was deliberately argued by
Judge William j. Robertson ana MT.
Henry Taylor for the r ran 40 a1i
company. That court IN an able opinion
nv its president, Judge Keith, affirmed
the lower court; whereupon the railroad
company applied for .and obtained a VIII
of error from the Supreme Court or the
limited States. The case was recently
argued in that court by Hon. Henry 4.
Wfckham and Mr.. Henry Taylor Tor the
railroad and by Mr.. A. w. Patterson Tor
the tobacco company.
The decision just rendered, In an opln-
ion by Mr.. Justice White, holds that the
Virginia statute is not in conflict with
the commerce clause OF the Federal Con-
stitution. and aftirms the judgment OF
the Court of Appeals. This is final VIC
tory for the tobacco company.
AS will be seen from what has been
said the law as laid down by this case
is that the first carrier Is liable for dam
age or loss of goods sent over its line.
Notwithstanding such damage or loss oc-
ours upon a connecting line, and even
though the bill of lading expressly stipu-
iates that such carrier shall be released
from all liability for loss beyond its own
road. provided the shipper does not sign
the paper containing such release clause.
Merchants and manufacturers nave
watched the progress Of this case with
considerable interest, and the construc-
ton placed upon the Virginia statute by
the highest court in the land is favorable