The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-06-23

consignment of goods in transit by rea-
son Of the flood must Be borne by the
consignee Topeka dry goods houses
viii undoubtedly be many thousands Of
dollars Ito the bad" While others are
in doubt about their liability w w
Mills says he expects to lose all goods
shipped to him that were caught in the
water at Kansas City. The impossi-
bility of locating with any certainty the
consignments that were known to have
been started on the road makes it i'm
possible to determine these losses and
like most of the other big merchants
Mr.. Mills is either ignorant of or I'M
willing to make an estimate upon his
loss. Crosby Brothers and Warren NJ
Crosby, prcprietors of big dry goods
stores, are ignorant Of the amount of
goods consigned to them and damaged,
but expect to wait until the settlement
of similar cases involving the question
of responsibility, IS some are certain to
arise in the near future. z. H. Crosby,
of Crosby Brothers. states as his opin-
ion that the responsibility is between
the railroad and the consignee.
WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY
LIES.
When a shipper places a consignment
of goods in the hands of the railroad
company it is generally understood that
his ownership of and responsibility for
the goods ends. If wreck or other
agency damages the goods in transit the
railroad company is responsible. But
in the bill of receipt which the railroad
gives when taking the goods IS a clause
excepting them from liability for goods
damaged by act of providence. The
railroads claim the flood was an act Of
God, to escape which they had no
power.
If the shippers responsibility has
ceased when the railroad took the bill
of goods, and the railroad is not liable
for their damage by flood, the loss will
Ix~ foil
ordered the goods. In Texas recently
shipper ordered a company to stop and
return to him bill of freight consigned
to a house which had been declared m
solvent. Although the shipper mao
supposedly released his ownership Of
the goods when the railroad took them
he still attempted to exercise this power
The railroad company intended to com
plv with the order to hold the goods
b1It through the carelessness of an en-
ploye failed to do so, and the goods
went on to the bankrupt establishment
and into the possession of a receiver IN
a suit on the part of the shipper TO re-
cover from the railroad the shipper was
given a judgment for their Nalue IN
federal cours The court held that the
ownership of the shipper continued IN
til the goods were received by the con-
signee.
Glenn, of the Fair. expects TO es 3Is4l
worth of goods that he thinks We're
damaged in Kansas City. The case i
undoubtedly equally applicable to that
of every other cOnsignee IN Mr. Glenn
situation 1t is over the point of own
ership that the question of loss bal
ances-
Express companies will undoubtedlS
assume. precisely the same position that
the railroads have done in the present
difficulty. In their contracts is included
an "act of Cod clause. behind vs1ich
they will probably take refuge How
ever. in the case of a few dollars worth
Of mems furnishings consigned to
local clothing store, the Wells-F'argo
company, whose car is believed to have
been caught at Kansas City, have no.
tilted the cOnsignees of the loss ans
have sent for bill
Notwithstanding the Texas case,
prospects for continued prosperity on
The part of the lawyers has not been
better III years. There will be lawsuits
without number before the flood of 1903
s forgotten A hundred different posi-
oiIities fit as many cases! In many
he railroad may be liable because il
lid not deliver goods as promptly as II
night have done, running on schedule
ime. Topeka merchants who anUci.
pate trouble in settling claims, propose
o wait until some of the Kansas Cits
,onsignees become involved in lawsuits
over goods shipped to them. One dry
goods store there is said to have lost
40, 600 worth of goods right in the Kan
sas City yards.