Document: 339 U.S. 113 70 S.Ct. 499 94 L.Ed. 698 REIDERv.THOMPSON. No. 403. Argued Feb. 7, 1950. Decided March 13, Rehearing Denied April 10, See 936, 663. Mr. Eberhard P. Deutsch, New Orleans, La., for petitioner. M. Truman Woodward, Jr., respondent. Justice MINTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question in this case is whether a claim relief under so-called Carmack Amendment to Interstate Commerce Act has been stated against respondent carrier. District Court held that within had not stated. Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed by divided court. 176 F.2d 13. Because presents an issue importance application federal statute governing liability common carriers damage goods transported them, we granted certiorari. 338 890, 243. 2 pertinent part provides: 'Any carrier, railroad, or transportation company subject provisions chapter receiving property from point one State Territory Columbia another State, Territory, Columbia, any United States adjacent foreign country shall receipt bill lading therefor, and be liable lawful holder thereof loss, damage, injury such property, caused it which may over whose line lines pass when on through * *.' 34 Stat. 593, 595, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 20(11), U.S.C.A. 20(11). 3 Respondent railroad received shipment wool skins at Louisiana, Boston, Massachusetts, way its connecting carriers, issued original shipment. Petitioner, who alleged he was owner goods, sued respondent, carrier Amendment, damages, asserting good order condition Orleans damaged arrival Boston. filed motion dismiss ground complaint did state upon could granted. Court's granting dismissing suit. 4 It disputed if these were all facts courts below error. Clearly Act, account moving pleaded Amendment. Galveston, H. & S.A.R. Co. v. Wallace, 223 481, 32 205, 56 516. But stipulation considered with pleadings, learn originated Buenos Aires, Argentina. steamship there occean lading, freight payable Aires. What stipulated accurate English translation ocean reads part: 5 'The Shipper, Ship, Consignee, Destination Goods are specified following: 6 Shipper: Emilio Rosler S.R.L. Ship: Rio Parana 7 Port Shipment: Aires Discharge Ship 8 destination goods: _ (if transshipped out port discharge) 9 Shipper Order of: First National Bank Boston 10 Notice should addressed consigned Shipper's Order) Rudolph Reider 39 South Street Mass. U.S.A.' 11 domestic recited Lambert same (176 14) characterized 'supplemental lading' cover portion delivery 'through shipment', intended apply tests laid down Erie R. Co., 280 98, 50 51, 74 187, Texas Sabine Tram 227 111, 33 229, 57 442, applied determining transaction shipment.' And Missouri Pacific Porter, 273 341, 47 383, 71 672, relied authority proposition 12 Reliance cited cases misplaced. Porter case, supra, totally different here.1 commerce properly is, our view material. 13 basically, problem here liability. contract giving rise liability—the lading—is primary aid solving problem. So turn ascertain evidences 14 Does fact take without Amendment? We think not. There no record does show slightest privity between terminated Orleans. Having terminated, nothing remained new, separate, distinct carriage 'supplement.' Even parties different. If various dealing separated into portions their contracts, judicially meld something they test where originated, but obligation originated. Rice Oregon Short Line Idaho 565, 198 161; Barrett Northern 29 139, 157 1016; Baltimore Ohio Montgomery 19 Ga.App. 29, 90 S.E. 740. Thus significant country, since journey border States. That squarely statute. 15 Alwine Pennsylvania 141 Pa.Super. 558, A.2d 507, much Appeals, point. need now determine correctly decided. For purposes sufficient note court emphasized came Canada. terminate border, instant case. Nor Mexican Light Power 331 731, 67 1440, 91 1779, export international boundary, destined Mexico, Mexico. last series handling second Laredo, Texas, Recovery sought initial (receiving) This because duties controlled first bill, consideration void. As dissenting judge said: 'That rules reverse .' hardly contended respondent's matter fact, have moved inch beyond bill; required 16 disavow, both concurring below, intimation holding might impose attributable alleges delivered. Unless petitioner can prove his complaint, liable. 17 purpose relieve shippers burden searching particular negligent among often numerous interstate goods. To hold otherwise than do would immunize beneficial shipments originating reshipped via very chain most concerned. wording meaning judgment 18 Reversed. DOUGLAS JACKSON took decision 20 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 21 presented constitutes organic nonadjacent continental every other aspect treated 20(11) familiarly known Since I agree answer given ought join reversing decision. 22 court's position supported 344, 345, 384, read light criteria what commerce. 187. sure, precise said scope relation relevant immediate true aspect. In decide consider regulatory scheme entirety. conclusion case—that unbroken country—carried two Justices, Butler Brandeis, them comprehensive experience working Act. Judge Hutcheson indicated taking words illuminating context part. A legal faggot broken verbal sticks. briefly alluded coverage sole regulation bills covered field exclusion matter. discussion control

Category: 7