Case Name: DE WINTER & CO. v. TEXAS CENT. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1912-05-31
Citations: 135 N.Y.S. 893
Docket Number: 
Parties: DE WINTER & CO. v. TEXAS CENT. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 135
Pages: 893–899

Head Matter:
DE WINTER & CO. v. TEXAS CENT. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 31, 1912.)
1. Carriers (§ 177*)—Freight—Connecting Carriers—Liability.
Under the Carmack Amendment (34 Stat. 584, 595, c. 3591 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1288]), making initial carriers of interstate shipments of freight liable for losses occurring on a connecting line, a carrier which contracted to transport eggs from a point in Texas to New York City under a bill of lading which provided that the cars should be stopped at intermediate points, including a point on the initial line, a junction point, and a point on a connecting line, to receive additions to the shipment, is liable for damage to the shipment, including eggs loaded at the point on the connecting line; one rate being fixed for the entire shipment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 775-803; Dec. Dig. § 177.*]
2. Carriers (§ 177*)—Freight—Connecting Lines—Liability.
Under the Carmack Amendment (34 U. S. St. 584, 595, c. 3591 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1288]), which makes an initial carrier of an in-, terstate shipment liable for loss arising on a connecting line, provision in a bill of lading covering a car load of eggs shipped from a point in Texas to New York City that the car should be stopped at a point on a connecting line to finish loading did not defeat the initial carrier’s liability for loss arising beyond its line.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 775-803; Dec. Dig. § 177.*]
Ingraham, P. J., dissenting.
*For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by De Winter & Co. against the Texas Central Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN,. CLARKF, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ.
Dickinson W. Richards, of New York City, for appellant.
Francis A. Winslow, of New York City, for respondent.

Opinion:
McLAUGHLIN, J.
In July, 1909, A. B. Patterson & Co., plaintiff's assignors, shipped at Stamford, Tex., on the line of defendant's railroad 129 cases of eggs consigned to themselves in New York. At the time of the shipment, a bill of lading, signed by the defendant's, agent at Stamford, was delivered to the shipper. So much of the bill of lading as is material to the question to be considered reads as follows :
"Texas Central Railroad.
"Received at Stamford, Texas, July 6th, 1909, from A. B. Patterson & Co. the property described below, in apparent good order.
"The Rate of Freight from Stamford to New York 120 is in Cents per 100 Lbs.
"Consigned to A. B. Patterson & Co.
"Destination, New York, State of N. Y.
"Route, T. C. Car M. K. & T. at Waco Car Initial P. F. E.
Car No. 2514
1. Car Eggs in Patent carriers 129 Cases loaded at Stamford Stop at Greenville, Dublin, Waco, to Finish Loading. Put in 2000 lbs. Ice at Dublin
"A. B. Patterson & Co. Shipper. Geo. Buckingham Agent.
"Per Boyd Shofner Per. "
Dublin was on the defendant railroad, Waco was at the junction" of it with the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad, and Greenville was on the line of the latter road. The only bill of lading which was delivered to the shipper is the one to which reference has been made. Just what occurred at Dublin does not appear, except what may be inferred from additions to the bill of lading after the car left Stamford; i. e., the eggs that were put into it at Waco, what were in it when it left Greenville, and what were found in it when it reached New York. After the car left Stamford, there was added to the bill of lading, after the words "Put in 2000 lbs. Ice at Dublin":
"131 cs. eggs loaded Dublin
"176 cs. eggs loaded Waco
"436 (four hundred thirty-six cases)
"Rec'd four tons ice Denison, two tons ice Parsons, to capacity at East St. Louis and keep fully protected with crushed ice and 10% salt."
At Waco 176 cases of eggs were put into the car, but no new bill of lading was issued. The witness Seifer, who was the agent of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Road at Waco, testified:
" Shipment was shown to be moving on original bill of lading-issued by the Texas Central Railroad Company, but notation was made on the original waybill accompanying the shipment that 176 cases of eggs had been, loaded by the M., K. & T. at Waco."
At Greenville, the final point designated in the bill of lading at which loading was to be finished, no additional cases were put into the car, but a final inspection of it was made by a representative of the consignors, and the car then moved forward under the bill of lading issued by the agent of the defendant at Stamford.
The car arrived in New York on the 22d of July, over the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, and notice of that fact was given to the consignors, who surrendered the bill of lading properly indorsed to the agent of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad at the Cortlandt street pier, in the city of New York, and 50 cases of the eggs were then taken from the car; a receipt being given for the same as in good condition. These cases were then taken to the warehouse of A. B. Patterson & Co., and found to be in a damaged condition. A. B. Patterson & Co., through their representative, immediately informed the agent of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad of the condition of the eggs as shown by inspection, and asked permission to amend the receipt to conform to the facts, which was refused, on the ground that such receipt would then be contrary to the rules of the Trunk Line Association. A. B. Patterson & Co. thereupon refused to take the balance of the eggs unless they were allowed to receipt for them in condition which an examination would disclose. An examination was denied. A. B. Patterson & Co. refused to take the balance of the eggs, consisting of 374 cases, and they were subsequently sold by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad. This action was brought to recover the value of the 374 cases.
The plaintiff had a verdict for $2,344.98, and from the judgment entered thereon and from an order denying a motion for a new trial the defendant appeals.
I am of the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the so-called Carmack Amendment (34 U. S. Statutes at Large, 584, 595), which provides:
" That any common carrier receiving property shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass. "
The defendant by its contract agreed to deliver in a car specified a car load of eggs to the shipper in the city of New York. It fixed the freight rate on the entire shipment from Stamford, Tex., the place where the car started, to New York, irrespective of the place where the car might be loaded. The bill of lading issued by defendant's agent at Stamford stated: "The rate of freight from Stamford to New York 120 is in cents per 100 lbs." When this bill of lading was isued, as appears from it, defendant contracted to stop the car at Dublin, Waco, and Greenville "to finish loading." There is no dispute between the parties as to the number of cases of eggs which were in the car when it left Greenville and when it reached New York. Pursuant to defendant's agreement that it would stop the car after it left Stamford at the points named to finish loading, 131 cases were put on at Dublin, and 176 cases were put on at Waco, which, with the 129 cases put on at Stamford, made 436 cases. But it seems 12 cases were taken out at Greenville. Plaintiff's witness Strom testified that there were 424 cases in the car when it left Greenville.
It is urged by the appellant's counsel that the recovery, here cannot be sustained under the Carmack Amendment in any event for more than the value of the eggs loaded along defendant's line, because the balance of the eggs were received not by it but by the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Road. It seems to me this contention is unsound because defendant's contract was to deliver the car load of eggs to be loaded at various points in New York City. The Missouri, Kansas & Texas Road issued no bill of lading for the eggs which it put into the car. It simply entered upon the original bill of lading the loading of so many cases. Whatever eggs the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Road put into the car it loaded them as the agent of the defendant, which under the Carmack Amendment made it liable as though it had itself received and loaded them. Smeltzer v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company (C. C.) 158 Fed. 649, sustains this view. There the bill of lading recited that the defendant received from the shipper certain packages in good order—
"consigned and marked to T. Cochran & Co., New York, N. Y., to be transported over the line of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to St. Louis station, and delivered in like good order to the care of the Big 4 and Empire Line, which line is a part of the route to the place of destination of said freight, it being distinctly understood 'that the responsibility of each carrier shall not begin until it receives the freight from the consignor or from some connecting carrier and shall cease when it delivers the same to a common carrier or to the consignee. No carrier shall be responsible for loss or damage of any of the freight shipped, unless it is proved to have occurred during the time of its transit over the particular carrier's line.' "
The real question there presented was whether the bill of lading obligated the initial carrier to deliver the shipment to the consignee in New York, or whether it was discharged from all responsibility when it delivered the freight to the Big 4 at St. Louis station. It was held that the defendant was liable, and that, notwithstanding the bill of lading, the Big 4 was the agent of the defendant to complete the delivery. Judge Rogers, who delivered the opinion, said:
"I conclude that prima facie the Big 4 and Empire Lines were, under this contract as it now appears of record, the agents of the defendant, and that it could not contract against its liability for the negligence of its own agents, and that the seventh section of the Act of June 29, 1906, strikes down the provision in the bill of lading exempting the defendant from liability for loss occurring on the lines of its agents or connecting carriers."
This case was cited with approval by the United States Supreme Court in Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 207, 31 Sup. Ct. 164, 55 L. Ed. 167, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 7.
_ The purpose of the Carmack Amendment was to enable the shipper in case of loss or damage to his goods to have recourse to the initial carrier, and leave the initial carrier to its recourse for whatever damage it might have to pay to the company doing the injuries in case such injuries were done by a connecting line. The wisdom of the act is well illustrated in the present case.
It is also urged that no liability on the part of defendant survived the arrival of the car at Greenville; in other words, that the eggs were there delivered to the shipper. As we have already seen, the defendant agreed that the car should "stop at Green-ville to finish loading." The car did stop there, and was inspected by the shipper's agent. Cases were examined and those in poor condition removed. They were then recounted, the car was sealed, and moved forward under the original bill of lading. In stopping the car at Greenville defendant simply carried out its contract. Neither of the parties contemplated that the shipment was to be there delivered, and there is nothing in the bill of lading from which any fair inference can be drawn that the stopping of the car at that place was to constitute a delivery, or that defendant should thereafter be relieved of liability.
Other questions are raised as to the admission of evidence and especially as to the value of the eggs, but, after a careful consideration of the record, I have not found any errors upon either of those subjects which would justify a reversal of the judgment. I am of the opinion that the judgment is right, and should be affirmed.
CLARKE, SCOTT, and DOWLING, JJ., concur.