Court Opinion

ID: 9830734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:25:22.851389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:26.074973
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We have carefully considered appellant’s motion for rehearing.
This case, on its facts, is no such case as Bronstein v. Payne, 138 Md. 116, 113 A. 648, 649, relied on strongly by appellant, and referred to in our former opinion. In the Bronstein case the plaintiff was the consignee, and the writing relied upon as constituting a written claim was from the consignee to the carrier, as follows: “Please find B/L and paid freight bill for nine compressed bales of rags, of which we only received eight. Kindly trace the bale that’s short * *
In testifying in explanation of what a claim tracer was, Bronstein said: “A claim tracer means that the party wants to trace the bale of rags; he don’t want the money. ⅜ * ⅜»
In the instant case the plaintiff was the consignor. The letter of July 9, 1937, set forth in our original opinion, notifies the carrier that the consignee is claiming that its records indicate no delivery of the shipment had been made. The letter was written at a date so late that the parties knew that, either .the shipment had been delivered, the records of the consignee to the contrary notwithstanding, or that it was lost and the carrier must pay therefor. Therefore, the demand in the letter of July 9, 1937, that the carrier prove delivery to the consignee was an invocation by the consignor of the carrier’s accountability under the contract of carriage, made at a time when all parties knew that if the carrier failed to prove delivery it would thereby prove its liability for failure to deliver.
The carrier’s answer to said letter evidences that it understood the letter of July 9, 1937, as such demand, and in notifying the consignor that it could not prove delivery it invited the consignor to file its claim in the “usual manner”. Nothing more could be done by the consignor except to put its demand upon the carrier in a form which the carrier deemed more satisfactory. The carrier already knew all the facts from the letter of July 9, 1937, had made the investigation which showed its liability, and understood from the letter that the consignee demanded payment for the shipment if lost.
The judgment rendered in this case was for the sum of $210.60. As the case was appealed to the county court from the *216justice court the court’s jurisdiction to render judgment was restricted to a sum not in excess of $200. The judgment will be reformed therefore to read for $200 instead of for $210.60. This error in rendering an excessive judgment to the extent of $10.60 was not called to the attention of the trial court, and this appeal was not made necessary in order to correct such error. The costs of the appeal will therefore not be adjudged against appellee, and the judgment heretofore rendered assessing costs against appellant shall not be disturbed. See General Missionary Soc., etc., v. Real Estate, etc., Co., 134 Tex. 564, 136 S.W.2d 599; South Texas Lloyds v. Bryant, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 112.
We overrule appellant’s motion for rehearing except that the judgment is reformed as aforesaid, and as reformed the judgment is affirmed.
Reformed and affirmed.
Rehearing refused.