Court Opinion

ID: 9811866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:31:01.194159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:02.884036
License: Public Domain

*76Brown, J.,
dissenting: The facts appearing from the plaintiff's evidence are as follows: On 28 January, 1907, plaintiff delivered to defendant at its depot in Burlington, North. Carolina, one blowpipe machine, with directions to ship it to Allison & Curtis Manufacturing Company, Saginaw, Michigan. The blowpipe was not the property of the plaintiff, but had been sent on trial and was being returned to the owners. The defendant’s agent stated that he had no rates on Saginaw, Mich., and could not ship the blowpipe until he could get them. Plaintiff’s agent said that was all right, that he would pay freight as soon as he got bill of lading. The blowpipe was placed on the platform of defendant’s depot. Defendant’s agent tried to get the rates next day from the division freight agent’s office at Greensboro, but did not succeed in getting them until 1 April, 1907, and two days thereafter the bill of lading was issued and the pipes were shipped.
The plaintiff claimed an indebtedness by way of penalty for $3,050, under the statute of this State, Revisal 1905, see. 2631, but did not make a claim for any actual damage sustained by the delay. Whether from motives of benevolence, fearing that such drastic penalties in a transaction of such small value will bankrupt the defendant, or whether from fear of removal to the Federal courts, for some reason, the plaintiff demands judgment for only $2,000.
1. I am of opinion that under the language and spirit of the statute, the plaintiff is not the party aggrieved, and therefore cannot maintain this action. It is admitted by plaintiff’s witness that the goods were not plaintiff’s property, but the property of the Allison & Curtis- Company, of Saginaw, Mich.; that they had been sent out for examination, and were being returned. In returning the pipes, the title to which had never been in plaintiff, the -clerk of plaintiff was acting for the Allison Company.
If the defendant is liable at all for a penalty it is liable to the Allison Company, for that company alone has sustained any actual damage by delay. The statute plainly designates who is the party aggrieved, by coupling him with the one who has sustained actual damage, in these words: “and shall pay to the party aggrieved the sum of $50 for each day said company refuses to receive said shipment of freight, and all damages actually sustained by reason of the refusal to receive the freight.” This language is peculiar to this statute, and does not appear in the other penalty laws. Unless the plaintiff can recover actual damages incident to the delay, then it follows that the penalty must go to the party who has sustained them.
*77Ill this case it is admitted that it is the consignee who owned the property, and to whom it was being returned, and who alone could be endamaged in any way by the delay.. It follows that the consignee alone can sue for the penalty. This is the principle laid down by this Court in Stone v. R. R., 144 N. C., 220, and as late as last term of this Court by Mr. Justice Walicer in McRackan v. R. R., 150 N. C., 332.
It is plain to me that the General Assembly has not subjected the defendant to two penalties, one to consignor and one to consignee, but by the express language of the act has given the one penalty to the party who has sustained actual damage. It is therefore manifest that a judgment against defendant in this action would be no bar to a recovery by the Allison & Curtis Company for actual damages and for this same penalty in connection therewith.
2. I am of opinion that this transaction is one of interstate commerce, to which section 2631 of our Eevisal cannot apply.
This is especially true since the act of Congress of 29 June, 1906, 34 Stat. L., 584, by which Congress has extended its jurisdiction over the whole subject of interstate shipments and ousted that of the States, if they ever had any, to regulate or to penalize carriers in respect to such shipments. This exact question is discussed in the dissenting opinion, concurred in by Justice Walicer and myself, in Reid v. R. R., 150 N. C., 766, in which I cited R. R. v. Mays, 201 U. S., 321, as direct authority against the right of a State to penalize a transaction of this kind, upon the ground that it is an attempt to regulate and impose a burden upon interstate commerce.
It would seem to me that a statute which permits the recovery as penalty of over $3,000 in a-small transaction by a party who has sustained no loss, and claims no actual damage, does impose an unreasonable burden upon interstate or any other kind of commerce, which few common carriers can bear and still perform their duties to the public.
It appears to me to be immaterial upon whom rests the burden of proving that defendant’s schedules had not been filed and published in accordance with the act of Congress. The act is cited for the purpose of showing that by its regulations and requirements Congress has itself assumed exclusive control of this kind of commerce, and thus ousted that of the States. If' it is material, then it appears from plaintiff’s testimony (defendant offered none) that defendant company had no rates to Saginaw, Mich., and, presumably, had filed and published none, as Saginaw is not on defendant’s lines. There are many lines of railway, belonging to different carriers, between Burlington and Saginaw, and surely the burden of proof cannot rest on this *78defendant to show that these several carriers had not filed and published their rates in accordance with the act.
3. There is another, stronger reason which impels me to believe that the General Assembly never intended the statute to apply to a transaction of this kind.
Before this plaintiff can recover the penalty it must show that the defendant was under a legal obligation to accept the pipes for transmission to Saginaw,_ Mich., and .to give a bill of lading to that point.
It is universally held in this country that a common carrier cannot be compelled to accept freight for shipment and delivery to a point beyond its own lines. It may voluntarily contract to do so, but it cannot be compelled by any legislative authority. Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 145, and cases cited in notes.
As said in the dissenting opinion referred to in Reid v. R. R., supra: “The liability of the carrier beyond the terminus of its own line must be based on contract, and no authority has been shown, and none exists, so far as my researches have discovered, to the effect that a State can compel an interstate carrier to enter into such a contract and give a through bill of lading to points in another State beyond its own lines, and penalize the carrier for its refusal.”
It is not to be supposed that the Legislature of this State intended to impose a penalty upon a common carrier for refusing to enter into a contract of carriage which it had no power to compel it to entér into.
This principle of law was practically recognized in the opinion of the Court in Reid v. R. R., supra, p. 765, but the Court held that Scottville, Tenn., was on defendant’s line of railway, according to the evidence in that case. In this respect that case differs materially from this, for it is a matter of common knowledge, of which courts may take judicial notice, that the Southern Eailway Company’s lines do not extend anywhere near to the State of Michigan. Harper v. Express Co., 144 N. C., 639. Therefore, I take it to be undeniable that when the plaintiff tendered the pipes to defendant’s agent at Burlington, N. C., and demanded a bill of lading to Saginaw, Mich., the agent had a right to refuse the proffered shipment altogether, unless the shipper should signify that he desired a bill of lading to the nearest point on defendant’s own line of railway, which in this case was not done.
Giving the demanded bill of lading to Saginaw was a matter of private contract, and the refusal to do so was not a violation of any public duty which the defendant owed plaintiff. Therefore, defendant’s agent acted well within his rights when he refused to give a bill of lading, and thus enter into a written con*79tract to deliver the goods at Saginaw, until, through the traffic department of the defendant, joint rates with the other carriers had been arranged.
It is a matter of general knowledge that transportation rates all over the United States are being constantly changed, and it is impossible for any common carrier to keep track of the various rates to every railway station in this Union and to be able at once to give them on demand. Under such circumstances they have, in my opinion, the right to refuse such shipments altogether or to hold up the issue of bills of lading until the necessary inquiries are made.
This Court has held that a refusal to issue a bill of lading at once upon tender of the freight to the point named by the shipper is a refusal to receive, and brings down upon the carrier the penalty given in section 2631.
This action is brought to recover the penalty for refusal to issue the bill of lading to Saginaw, and not for a delay in shipping the goods after receipt, and, under the opinion of the majority, the plaintiff, if he had asked it, would be entitled to recover $50 per day from 28 January, when the bill of lading was demanded, to 3 April, when it was issued, although this contract was one which, it must be admitted, the State of North Carolina had no power to compel the defendant to enter into.
I am unable, to reconcile such decision with the well-settled principles of law to which I have adverted.
Mr. Justice "Walker concurs in this dissenting opinion.