Case Name: SELLARS HOSIERY MILLS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1917-10-31
Citations: 174 N.C. 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: SELLARS HOSIERY MILLS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: Mb. Justice WauiceR concurs in this opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 449–454

Head Matter:
SELLARS HOSIERY MILLS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.
(Filed 31 October, 1917.)
1. Carriers of Goods — Statute—Penalties—Parties.
Where an intrastate shipment of goods is transported over connecting lines to its destination, it is proper for the trial court to make both roads parties to an action to recover the penalty for the failure to transport safely and within a reasonable time (Revisal, sec. 2632), the burden being upon each defendant to-show that it had not failed in its duty.
2. Same — Amount Involved — Courts—Discretion.
Where one of a connecting line of carriers had been sued in a justice’s court for the statutory penalty (Revisal, sec. 2632), in failing to transport the shipment within a reasonable time, and appealed to the Superior Court from an adverse judgment, it is proper for the court, in its discretion (Revisal, sec. 507), to order the other carrier to be made a party therein, though the amount involved was less than $200, without the necessity of remanding the case to the justice’s court for that purpose.
Brown, J., dissenting, in which Walker, J., concurs.
Appeal by defendant, Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company, from Kerr, J., at May Term, 1917, of AxamaNCe.
Tbis action was begun against tbe Southern. Eailway Company for the sum of $14 and interest from 23 May, 1916, under Eevisal, 2632, for failure to transport and deliver within a reasonable time a shipment of yarns from Weldon, N. O., to Burlington, N. O. Judgment was rendered by the justice against the Southern Eailway .Company for $14, and it appealed. When the case was called in the Superior Court the court ordered that the Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company be made a codefendant, and an alias summons was issued accordingly, wbicb was duly served. Tbe attorneys for that company entered a general appearance at January Term, 1917. After the filing of the complaint, the counsel for said company moved to dismiss, 2 March, 1917, on the ground that the Superior Court of Alamance had no jurisdiction.
'At May Term, 1917, the court refused to dismiss the action as to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, to which it excepted, and submitted the issues to the jury, which found that there was a failure by both companies to transport said shipment of yarns in a reasonable time, and that the plaintiff recover of the Southern Railway Company the sum of $3 and of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company $13. The court rendered judgment accordingly and directed the costs to be divided equally between the two defendants. The Atlantic Coast Line Railroad appealed.
No counsel for plaintiff.
Rose & Rose for defendant Atlantic Goast Line Railroad Company.

Opinion:
Clare, C. J.
The sole question presented is as to the power of the court to amend by making the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company a party defendant, when the sum sought to be recovered is less than $200.
The action was properly pending on appeal in the Superior Court. The Atlantic.Coast Line Railroad Company was made party defendant and summons duly served. Said defendant entered a general appearance in the action and took no exception.
There was but one contract of carriage in this case, i. e., to transport the goods safely and in a reasonable time from Weldon to Burlington, and to that contract-both these defendants were parties, acting through the agent at Weldon. It was very proper that both railroads should be made party to this action, for Revisal, 2632, prescribes as a penalty $10 for the first day's delay (where the shipment is less than a car-load) and $1 per day for each succeeding day. It must be determined, therefore, whether the first day's delay was on the Atlantic Coast Line or on the North Carolina Railroad, in the same action, since in separate actions the plaintiff might get the $10 assessed twice, or not at all, which could not occur when both carriers are made parties.
The action being regularly in the Superior Court on appeal, there is nothing that forbids additional parties being made, in order to have a full determination of the whole controversy, though less than $200 may be recovered against such additional parties. This often happens, especially in actions in the nature of a creditor's bill, but it is not restricted to such cases. It is not necessary to bring the second action in a justice's court and then consolidate on appeal. This might be impracticable, especially in cases where the additional party resides in another county.
Eevisal, 507, does not require that to "add or strike out the name of any party" such party must be necessary. It is left to the discretion of the judge, who can, if the party proves unnecessary, subsequently, strike out the name or exempt him from payment of costs.
It is evident by the verdict in this case that the Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad Company had unreasonably delayed this shipment in its transit from Weldon to Selma four days, and that the Southern Eailway Company had unreasonably delayed the shipment three days. Instead of splitting the matter up into two actions, the court properly made the Atlantic Coast Line Eailroad a party defendant and disposed of the whole cause in one action. It would have been a useless consumption of public time, and a great addition of costs, both to the plaintiff and defendants, to go over the same evidence in two different trials. The unreasonable delay in the transit of the goods between Weldon and Burlington, and the apportionment of the number of days of such unreasonable delay, could be better made by uniting both companies in this action, as they were united in the contract and in the transportation.
Under the Carmack Amendment, when it is an interstate shipment the plaintiff can recover against the initial carrier if he so elect. There are numerous cases in our courts where the action has been brought against the last carrier, leaving it to recover against its predecessors in the course of transportation for their share of the recovery. Mills Co. v. R. R., 119 N. C., 693. Most of these cases were for damages for injuries sustained in transit. But the principle is the same, and where goods have passed over two or more lines in transit, and a penalty for unreasonable delay is to be assessed, it is proper that both lines should be made parties defendant for the apportionment of the delay. The presumption of liability, when unreasonable delay is shown, lies against each of the carriers in whose possession the goods are shown to have been in the course of transportation; and the burden of proof is upon each to rebut such presumption of negligence as to itself. Furniture Co. v. Express Co., 144 N. C., 639.
This is not a question of jurisdiction, but merely of the discretionary power of the court to amend by making an additional party defendant. Both these defendants were parties to the contract sued on, to transport the goods safely, without unreasonable delay. While they might have been sued separately at the will of the plaintiff, the court properly had the other defendant brought in.- It was not necessary to remand the cause to the jjistice of the peace, that he should make the additional party, thus necessitating another appeal.
There is no other assignment of error, and in this we find the judge acted within his authority, as conferred by Revisal, 507.
No error.