Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-01
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
viRcINiAN-PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People. ~
H1NKLE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

aINkLE ". SOUTHERN RY. co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
June s. 1900.
WHEN CATTLE SHIPPED UNDER
A SPECIAL CONTRACT WE'RE
DELIVERED IN A DAMAGED
CONDITION. THE BURDEN IS ON
THE CARRIER TO BRING THE
INJURY WITHIN THE EXCEP-
TON IN THE CONTRACT. AND
SHOW THAT 1T WAS NOT
CAUSED BY IT'S NEGLIGENCE.
WHEN SUCH CONTRACT REQUIR-
ED WRITTEN NOTICE OF A
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES, RECOV-
cry is NOT BARRED If THE
SHIPPER SIGNED A RECEIPT
FOR THE CATTLE UNDER PRO
TEST BECAUSE OF THEIR DAM
AGED CONDITION.
We must not lose sight of the real
cause of action, which is the injury
resulting from the failure of the de-
PENDANT to seasonably transport and
safely deliver live stock received by 1t
as q common carrier. The plaintiffs
case is fully made out when they have
shown that the cattle were received by
S'S Soii a1Q IlOL SeaSOnaDly ana
safely delivered; that Is, not delivered
at all. or delivered in a damaged con-
dition, and after an unreasonable de-
lay. The burden is then upon the de-
fendant. and, IL 1t wishes to escape any
part OF its common-law liability by
showing special contract, 1t must
affirmatively prove such contract, and
bring the injury clearly within the
terms of its exemption. These princi-
pies have been SO recently and so fully
discussed by this court in Mitchell V.
Railroad Co.. 124 N. C. 236, that any
further elaboration seems needless, at
least for the present. The essential
principle is tersely and strongly stated
by Chief Justice Faircloth in Morgan
ton Mfg. Co. VS.. Ohio r. e. C. Ry Co.,
III N. G.. 514. where, speaking for
unanimous court, he says:
Among connecting lines of common
carriers. that one in whose hands
goods are found damaged is presumed
to have caused the damage, and the
burden is upon it to rebut the presump-
ton"
The rule is we'll stated in Greenl. Ev.
Oath ED section 49, in the following
language:
And. II the acceptance was special
the burden of proof is still on the car
rier to show, not only that the cause
of loss was within the terms of the ex-
ception. but also that there was on his
part no negligence or want of due
care"
That this rule, which at first was
seriously questioned, is receiving almost
general acceptance, would appear from
the recent work of Elliott on Railroads,
where the author says. in section 1913,
on page 2043:
There is some conflict among the au-
thorities as to the burden of proof in
such cases; but the prevailing rule,
H. r.
go with the stock, is that when the
animals are shown to have been de-
livered to the carrier in good condI-
ton. and to have been lost or injured
on the way. the burden OF proof then
rests upon the carrier to show that the
loss or injury was not caused by its
own Negligence"
This rule. which is the natural re-
suit of the prima facie liability of the
common carrier. is further strength
ened by the universal acceptance OF
the principle that. when a particular
fact necessary to be proved rests
peculiarly within the knowledge of q
party. upon him rests the burden of
proof.
The only remaining question Is
whether the failure of the plaintiffs to
give formal written notice of their loss
or intention to demand compensation
is an absolute bar to their recovery If
otherwise ertfttUd. we Think not. The
object OF such n stipulation is not to
relieve the carrier from it's just liabil-