Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/294/494.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:18:10+00:00

Document:
THE ANSALDO SAN GIORGIO I v. RHEINSTROM BROS. CO.
Mr. Homer L. Loomis, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. D. Roger Englar, of New York City, for respondent.
The question presented is whether the cause appearing in the bill of lading is valid and constitutes a defense to the shipper's claim for negligence damage to a portion of the consignment.
Two so-called valuation clauses have been in frequent use. One is a true limitation agreement. It recites that a sum named in the bill of lading is the agreed value of the goods, or their value per unit or per package, in the absence of the shipper's declaration of a higher value; that the rate is fixed with reference to the specified value, and if a greater be declared a higher rate will apply; that in consideration of the rate to be charged, the carrier's liability [294 U.S. 494, 497] for loss or damage shall be limited to the stipulated value. In case of loss or damage this clause enures to the carrier's, but not to the shipper's benefit. The latter can in no event recover more than his actual loss, but may have to take much less. The damages are computed in the usual way without reference to the stipulation, but, if when so computed they exceed the agreed limit of value, no recovery of the excess may be had. 9 Such a stipulation, we have said, is not enforcible unless the shipper, for agreeing to such a limitation of the carrier's liability, receives a consideration consisting in the offer of a lower rate as against a higher rate offered for the service without such limitation;10 or, as has been said, the rate is tied to the release. 11 Agreements of this kind are held to be reasonable and not offensive to the public policy against contracts relieving the carrier from its own negligence. 12 The agreement as to value in consideration of carriage at the lower rate thus obtained is held to estop the shipper from demanding damages in excess of the agreed value.
[ Footnote 1 ] 1928 A.M.C. 109. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree, 26 F. (2d) 1016, and this court denied certiorari, 278 U.S. 633 , 49 S.Ct. 31.
[ Footnote 2 ] (D.C.) 3 F.Supp. 579.
[ Footnote 3 ] (C.C.A.) 73 F.(2d) 40.
[ Footnote 4 ] 293 U.S. 551 , 55 S.Ct. 217, 79 L.Ed. --.
[ Footnote 5 ] See Rule 38, subd. 5(b) of this court.
[ Footnote 6 ] St. Johns N. F. Shipping Corporation v. S.A. Companhia Geral, etc., 263 U.S. 119, 125 , 44 S.Ct. 30, and authorities cited.
[ Footnote 7 ] Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272; York Mfg. Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad, 3 Wall. 107; Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Company, 93 U.S. 174 ; Cau v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 194 U.S. 427 , 24 S.Ct. 663.
[ Footnote 8 ] New York C. Railroad Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 384; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639, 650 , 33 S.Ct. 391; Boston & Maine Railroad v. Piper, 246 U.S. 439, 445 , 38 S.Ct. 354, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 469.
[ Footnote 9 ] Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 112 U.S. 331 , 5 S.Ct. 151; Duplan Silk Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. (C.C.A.) 223 F. 600, 603.
[ Footnote 10 ] Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., supra; Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491 , 33 S.Ct. 148, 44 %.l.r.a.(n.s./) 257; George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 236 U.S. 278 , 35 S.Ct. 351; Boston & Marine Railroad v. Piper, supra; Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Burke, 255 U.S. 317 , 41 S.Ct. 283.
[ Footnote 11 ] Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Burke, supra, 255 U.S. 317, 321 , 41 S.Ct. 283.
[ Footnote 12 ] Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., supra, 112 U.S. 340 , 5 S.Ct. 151; Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, supra, 227 U.S. 639, 649 , 650 S., 33 S.Ct. 391.
[ Footnote 13 ] Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Erie & Western Transportation Co., 117 U.S. 312, 322 , 6 S.Ct. 750; Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Olivit Bros., 243 U.S. 574 , 37 S.Ct. 468; Gulf, Colorado, etc., Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., 244 U.S. 31 , 37 S.Ct. 487; The Oneida (C.C.A.) 128 F. 687.
[ Footnote 14 ] Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull-Dinsmore Co., 253 U.S. 97 , 40 S.Ct. 504.
[ Footnote 15 ] Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Erie & Western Transportation Co., supra; Gulf, Colorado, etc., Ry. Co. v. Texas Packing Co., supra, 244 U.S. 31, 36 , 37 S.Ct. 487; Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. McCaull- Dinsmore Co., supra.
[ Footnote 16 ] Western Transit Co. v. A. C. Leslie & Co., 242 U.S. 448, 453 , 454 S., 37 S.Ct. 133; Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Burke, supra, 255 U.S. 317, 320 , 321 S., 323, 41 S.Ct. 283.
[ Footnote 17 ] See The Ansaldo San Giorgio I (D.C.) 3 F.Supp. 579, 581.
[ Footnote 18 ] Compare Pearse v. Quebec SS. Co. (D.C.) 24 F. 285, 287, 288.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.