Court Opinion

ID: 9638058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:31:39.720883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:03.396058
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
Here the shipper-appellee apparently was not satisfied with the services rendered by the forwarder and engaged a local carrier to pick up its merchandise for delivery to the freight docks of the forwarder. The shipper agreed upon a released value in the bill of lading form which it prepared. I would hold that such a declaration or agreement in writing as to the value of the goods applies while the goods are in the possession of the local carrier. Thus, the recovery by the shipper should be limited to the declared amount since the local carrier imposed a rate lower than would have been charged if the merchandise were declared at its real value.
Even though the shipper could have had his shipment picked up by the forwarder and the shipper would not have been obligated to pay additional compensa*449tion to the forwarder for such pickup, nevertheless the shipper selected the local carrier to transport his shipment to the forwarder’s docks at an additional cost to the shipper of fifty-five cents per package. I do not construe the evidence as does the majority so as to determine that the fifty-five cents per package paid to the local carrier constituted a charge of a higher rate and thus relieve the shipper of his agreed release value. Paramount Dress Co. v. Kirby & Kirby, Inc., 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 524, 76 A. 2d 432 (1950), relied upon by the majority, has no value as a precedent here. There the agreed upon released value was not filled in. Here the shipper itself filled in the released value and I would hold that it is bound thereby.
I dissent.
Mr. Justice Roberts joins in this dissenting opinion.