Court Opinion

ID: 7812511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:14:26.21407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:30.855854
License: Public Domain

Hart, J., (after stating the facts). It appears from the record that the cause of action arose out of the operation of the railroad of the Missouri Pacific Bailroad Company by the Director General of Bailroads under the Federal Control Act. Therefore it is claimed by the railroad company that it is not liable for the alleged negligence and consequent damage. It is now finally settled by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which this court has followed, that no liability for negligence arising out of the operation of a railroad by the Director General under the Federal Control Act is imposed upon the owner company, and that an action for damages therefor cannot be maintained against it for a cause of action arising out of the operation of the property of the railroad company under governmental supervision. Mo. Pac. Rd. Co. v. Ault, 256 U. S. 554, and Ark. Cent. Rd. Co. v. Walker, 150 Ark. 514. It is contended by counsel for the plaintiff, however, that the railroad company is estopped by its conduct from denying liability. It appears that, after the United States returned the railroads to their owners, the plaintiff filed a claim of loss for the box of dry goods in question with T. S. Walton, freight claim agent of the Missouri Pacific Bailroad Company, and that the plaintiff and Walton carried on a correspondence about the claim for about a year. In April, 1920, the agents of the Kansas City Southern Bailroad Company discovered a box of dry goods at its station at Bates, Ark., marked “B. E. Loving, Loving, Oklahoma.” When the box was opened the marks or brands on the goods indicated that the plaintiff was the shipper. The claim agent of the Kansas City Southern Bailroad Company went to Fort Smith and talked with the plaintiff about the box, and told him that it was at Bates, Ark. The claim agent says that the plaintiff told him that he would have nothing to do with the matter, because he had already filed a claim of loss with the Missouri Pacific Bailroad Company and looked to that company for the payment of the box of goods. On the other hand, the plaintiff and the assistant manager of the plaintiff’s firm testified that they told the claim ageiit of the Kansas City Southern Bailroad Company that the goods should be shipped to “B. E. Loving, Allen, Oklahoma,” and that he would doubtless receive them. In this connection it may be stated that the conversation between the plaintiff and the claim agent of the Kansas City Southern Bailroad Company could not in any manner create liability on the part of the Missouri Pacific Bailroad Company where none existed before. But it is insisted by counsel for the plaintiff that the Missouri Pacific Bailroad Company is liable under a letter written by its claim agent to the plaintiff on May 21, 1920. In this letter the plaintiff is informed that the railroad company is in receipt of information from the Kansas City Southern Railroad Company that the box of goods in question was at its station at Bates, Ark., having arrived there on February 1,1920, marked “B. E. Loving, Loving, Oklahoma.” The letter concludes with the following: “Advise what disposition you wish made of this shipment as promptly as possible.” On May 24, 1920, the plaintiff answered this letter, and the answer states that the plaintiff had already been informed by a representative of the Kansas City Southern Railroad Company that the box had been located, and that the plaintiff had instructed that railroad company to forward the box to its proper destination. The box was never forwarded by the Kansas City Southern Railroad Company, and never came into the possession of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company after the United States returned the railroads to their owners. The mere fact that the claim agent of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company asked the plaintiff what he wished to be done about forwarding the box would not make it liable for the damages which had been suffered by the negligence of the servants of the United States while the railroad was being operated under the Federal Control Act. If the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company had received the goods on its line of railroad and then ■ refused to forward them to their proper destination, there would have been liability on this account. The undisputed facts, however, show that the possession of the goods was never relinquished by the Kansas City Southern Railroad Company. That company refused to forward the goods, or to deliver them to the plaintiff or anyone else, unless the plaintiff would pay the freight charges. This the plaintiff refused to do, and the goods were sold by the Kansas City Southern Railroad Company for the nonpayment of the freight charges. The Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, under these circumstances, was in no wise guilty of negligence in the premises, and there was nothing in its conduct to create liability on its part. There was an offer of compromise made by the claim agent of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, but the letter also carried with it a denial of liability. We do not think that the mere fact that the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company endeavored to trace the misdirected bos of goods and to adjust a claim of loss therefor would create liability on its part. - Therefore, under the undisputed facts as they appear in this record, there was no liability on the part of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and the circuit court should have instructed a verdict in its favor. For the error in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.