Court Opinion

ID: 9827604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:41:45.90893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:33.734565
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[6] Plaintiff in error says:
“As we understand the opinion in this case, the court holds that the plaintiff in error is liable as a warehouseman. Article 731 does not make the connecting carrier the initial carrier’s agent except as to the contract of carriage. This court has overruled its opinion in T. & F. S. Ry. Co. v. Twin City Products Company, 208 S. W. 989.”
The two cases are entirely dissimilar. The holding in the instant case was only that the Texas & Pacific Railway Company was liable, under the facts as found by the trial court, for the injury to the goods as a warehouseman. The trial court found as a fact that the bill of lading issued by the Texas & Pacific Railway Company was “a through bill of lading for the same (the goods), the railway company agreeing to carry said meal from Aubrey to Tyler with reasonable dispatch and to deliver the same upon arrival at destination upon the shipper’s order, notifying Eriedlander.” “This finding of fact,” as stated' in the original opinion, “being unassailed by appellant, this court would be bound to take the finding as a fact.” The original opinion is entirely dependent upon this fact, so found by the trial court, of “a through bill of lading” being the real and true contract of shipment. Under this finding of fact, then, the contract of “through shipment” made with the shipper contemplated and required that the Texas & Pacific Railway Company, as a carrier, not only take the goods all the way to Tyler, the agreed “place of destination,” but as, well make “delivery” there to the consignee. Having made such contract, the Texas & Pacific Railway Company would legally be bound to perform its terms. And the liability of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company as a common carrier, in virtue of the contract of “through shipment” and the duty imposed thereby by law (article 711) continued “from the commencement of the trip” at Aubrey “until the goods are delivered to the consignee at the point of destination” at Tyler. Though this duty as a common carrier is performed in virtue of the statute (article 712) “when the carrier at the point- of destination shall use due diligence to notify the consignee and the goods are not taken by the consignee,” yet such railway company is not relieved of any further responsibility for the custody and protection of the goods derived in virtue of the contract of transportation and of necessity continued in its possession by the failure or refusal of the consignee to take possession of the same. The responsibility of bailee or “warehouseman” then attaches for the custody and protection of the goods. Article 712. That was the relation of the Texas & Pacific Railway Company to the goods in its possession at the time of the loss. As a warehouseman after the refusal of the consignee to take the goods the Texas & Pacific Railway Company continued liable, in the exercise of ordinary care, for the safe-keeping of the" goods in its custody and possession; and, if it suffered them to be damaged for want of such ordinary care, as found by the trial court, to keep them in a safe and suitable place, it will be liable.
[7] The fact that appellant had no depot or warehouse at the place of destination would not relieve it of its responsibility as a warehouseman. The appellant had the right to warehouse the goods in a car if, in the exercise of ordinary care, that was a safe and suitable place. Warehouse Co. v. Railway Co., 221 Ill. 418, 77 N. E. 675.
The motion is overruled.