The San Francisco call., 1899-09-13

titled An act TO grovide ways and means 20
meet war expenditures, and approved June
The question as to whether Wells Fargo &
Co. or the cousiguor should gay for such q
stamp as aforesaid vas deterntned oy thls
court last October adversely 70 the company IN
the case of Costley vs. Wells. Fargo & Co, on
appeal from the Justices Court, and writ
CostIey's action was brought to recover dam
ages suffered by reason q the company : refu-
Sal to receive and forward a certain package as
charges. The ground OF such refusal was Cost
ley's failure. on demand, 70 provide the com
pany with q stamp that the act o. Congress
required should be attached to the Demoran-
DUN OF recent. 70 which he was entitled, IN
event q the acceptance q his package Tor
The facts Of the case At bar place The defend
ant in a similar attitude 70 that which i as
concerns the ground or It's refusal % accept
the package rendered 70 Il by the plaintiff
Deseutaut now. however very earnestly
urges new point that the aforesaid act o.
Cen z-ess I'D not impose the burden OF prCvid-
inz the Aforesaid stamp exclusively upon the
defendant OF the ccnstsuDr but LETT * 70 the
1arrIes themselves who should bear such bur
den and contends. therefore, that defendant
might properly refuse 10 accept goods FOR
transportation Il the consignor refused 10 pro
vide OF pay for the stamp.
L appears from the pleadiugs and It is con-
cede- by defendant : counsel thGr the con-
signor offered 70 pay IN advance reasonable
compensation % defendant for its acceptance
and transportation o. the package IT question
We ind that section fs Of the aforesaid act de-
clares that any person who shall issue any n
Srrumsnt, document or paper mentioned IN
schedule A q the aforesaid act without the
same being duly stamped. shall BE guilty OF
E u1ts-en1ea1or and be punished BY me OF in
prtscuUeuC OF both. IN the discretion OF the
court; and that such instrument, document or
paper not being stamped shall be deemed in
valid and OF no effect
that II shall be the duty oc The express com
pa1y 70 issue TO the person from whom any
goods are accepted for transportation a BILL
q laiiug OF other memorandum 0f receipt.
same 8 stamp Of the value ct one cent and
that any failure u Issue such memorandum
shall subject the company 70 q penalty q $50
This court has not changed lis opinion as
expressed n writing IN the aforesaid Costley
case. but assuming. as defendant claims. that
the aforesaid scr q Congress does tot declare
shall provide rhe aforesaid stamp, still I am
satisfied that under sections 2t5s and 2173 u
our Civil Code the defendant, as a common
carrier. Is obliged 70 accept and transport
appear As the defendant 1pon acceptance Of
The goods would be obliged under both our
starutz and the aforesaid act 70 issue 4 mem
oranuum ct receipt II follows that . avoid the
commission 0t z crime Il would hs obliged %
attach the stamp 20 The memorandum, even
az It's own cost If the cousiguor refused %
Ths aforesaid sections of the Civil Code are
Section 21se-A common carrier must. II
able TO do 50. accept and carry whatever Is
offered 70 him. az reasonable tine and place.
of kind that ne undertakes OF is accustomed
to carry
TO reasonable compensation and no more,
which h may require to be paid in advance.
Il payment thereof is refused he may refuse
70 carry
Accordingly I an 0t the opinion. that the
motion for Judgment on the pIeadings should
be granted. and il Is so ordered