Document: 331 U.S. 731 67 S.Ct. 1440 91 L.Ed. 1779 MEXICAN LIGHT & POWER CO., Limited,v.TEXAS RY. CO. No. 404. Argued Feb. 6, 1947. Decided June 16, Mr. Charles W. Bell, of Houston, Tex., for petitioner. John P. Bullington, respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 This is an action to recover damages injury goods in course export shipment by rail. The Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Pennsylvania Railroad Sharon, Pennsylvania, ultimately destined Mexican Light Power Company. According bill lading issued were consigned 2 Co. Ltd., c/o Fausto Trevino, Customs Agent, (National Railways Mexico). 3 destination was Laredo, Texas, with further notation. 4 'For Export to: El Oro, Mexico, Estado de Mexico via Acambaro laredo.' 5 Transportation charges prepaid at rate, less than domestic, they covered not merely into Laredo but up international boundary. 6 Texas-Mexican Railway last series connecting carriers over which machinery routed Pennsylvania. latter, having received Alice, continued carriage its yards Laredo. At there agent, what formally appears be a consigning petitioner Oro. record silent as circumstances that brought this document existence, it admitted respondent no payment transporting other share rate under Sharon lading. Trevino did use second clearing he shipmen t customs, showing first would have served documentation purpose. railroad then moved goods, still original cars, from There, passed National on lines, injured. 7 Petitioner suit one district courts Texas. Judgment went railroad. Texas Court Civil Appeals reversed, 190 S.W.2d 838, turn reversed Supreme 193 964. We granted certiorari, 329 697, 97, because important issues affecting carrier's liability Interstate Commerce Act pressed upon us. 8 On full consideration case if falls within very narrow compass. indicated connections, including Texas-Mexican. By virtue Carmack Amendment, 34 Stat. 584, amended, 38 1196, 49 U.S.C.A. § 20(11), determines rights consignee. While each carrier is, course, liable damage occurring line, only initial any connections. Unless, therefore, reference cannot responsible injuries road. And become force purported unless so-called represents initiation new 9 agree nothing happened displace duty created boundary, or modify terms undertaking when, 10 What said cattle Missouri, Kansas R. v. Ward, 244 383, 387, 37 617, 619, 61 1213, precisely applicable case: 11 'The altered second, carrier. As appellants already bound transport named lading, acceptance shipper without void.' 12 No matter convenience consignee may derive through shipment, has addition flowed initiating carrier, Amendment makes such void. It can neither enlarge contract That meant when Ward purpose 'to create unity responsibility transportation destination.' supra, page 386, 1213. even stronger application principle. For found void lack although 'alleged been special reduced theretofore duly filed Commission' 'nothing indicate affected agreed lading.' pages 385, 618, 13 Properly finding evidence independent undertaking, judged rigid requirements are valid right holding legally never displaced therefore occurred Railroad. 14 affirmed. 15 REED, whom Chief VINSON joins, dissenting. 16 respondent, Company, articles Mexico. Accepting interpretation Court, required delivery International Boundary remains necessity causing cross boundary line proceed journey concedes, sued here, used clear 'the customs.' also plain latter caused line. Without it, could made railway system. called consignee's agent Trevino. issue similar service northbound shipments promotion respondent's business. 17 case, authority Court's holding. There point Oklahoma point. defense had said, 619: 18 interstate governs entire transportation. 19 facts seem us entirely different require accept

Category: 7