Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-07-01
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY ". p. MARTIN.
sExcluplvely for virginIan-P ilot.>
TEXAS s. p. r. co. V. CLAYTON.

". - Il
Supreme Court Of the United States.
February 20, 1899.
WHERE THE BILL OF LADING
FOR GOODS PROVIDED THAT
THE CARRIER ALONE IN WHOSE
ACTUAL CUSTODY THEY WE'RE
WHEN LOST SHOULD ZEE LIN
BILE, THE CARRIER WHO HAD
PLACED THE GOODS ON THE
WHARF OF A CONNECTING LINE
AND NOTIFIED IT THEREOF,
WAS LIABLE FOR THEIR DE
sTRUCTION BY FIRE, THE CON
Meeting LINE NOT HAVING
TAKEN ACTUAL CUSTODY OF
THEM.
In SUCH CASE THE CARRIER WAS
NOT A WAREHOUSEMAN, BUT
LIABLE AS a CARRIER.
This was an action against the de-
PENDANT railroad company for damages
arising from the lose of cotton by IRE.
The plaintiff delivered the cotton to
the railroad company at Bonham.
Texas, To he carried TO Liverpool. The
bills OF lading provided that in case Of
loss the carrier in the actual custody
OF whom the goods We're at that time
should alone be liable. The company
carried the cotton to New Orleans. the
end of its line. and placed ii on lis
wharf at WestmeGo, opposite New Or
leans. to be delivered To It's connecting
steamship company 10 be carried 10
Liverpool On the morning of the fire.
and at other times previous thereto,
the officers of the railway company
gave verbal notice to the etes mship
company that the cotton was on the
Ch if nC1:c1 them /
The cotton was destroyed by fire and
this suit was brought. Tho lower
courts gave judgment for plaintiff ana
the railroad company appealed.
The court says:
In the8case at bar. the facts plainly
indicate that although the goods had
been placed by the first carrier upon
the wharf. and although that was the
place at which The Steamship company
was to receive or usually received goods
from the railway company for further
transportation. they Ncre not III the
actual possession or under the actual
control OF the connecting carrier ut the
time OF the fire. The connecting car
rier had not given a mates receipt for
the cotton or assumed control OF it.
True 1t had received notice that the
goods were on the wharf and could be
taken Into possession, but such notice
did not put the cotton into the actrNl
custody of the connecting carrier Tie
opportunity given it to take possession
or its mere readiness to take posses
sion was not under the contract equiv
nlent to placing the cotton in the ac-
tual custody of the stca mShip line The
undertaking of the railway company
was to transport safely and deliver to
the next connecting carrier. But It's
further express agreement was. In sub
stance. that if any carrier incurred IL
ability TO the shipper in respect to the
. goods, that carrier alone was TO be La
BILE who, at the time the cotton wac
= damaged orvlost, had II In actual Gus
tody. In other words. the delivery TO
the connecting carrier. which would.
rs between the first carrier and the
shipper TERMINATE the liability Of such
carrier, must have been n delivery that
put the cotton into the actual. not CON
structive custody of the connecting
carrier. To hold otherwise is to clmi.
nate from the contract the clause re-
lat!ng to actual custody. further
contention of the defendant * that at
the time of the fire it held the goods
II at all, only as Il warehouseman and
not as n common carrier. and that the
Circuit Court erred in not so instruct
ing the jury. We cannot assent to this
view. 1t could not ccnNnrt-itsnlf into
q warehouseman by proving that it
had, before the fire. rendered the good;
to the connecting carrier, and that the
latter neglected, although withoutsreas-
enable excuse. to take them into its
actual custody. Affirmed.
AMER. w. WATCH co. ". U. s.
WATCH co.