Court Opinion

ID: 9829662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:30:40.799376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:20.844835
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It is stated in the written argument by appellee, on motion for rehearing, that it is not disputed by appellee that the court’s holding is correct that the stipulation set out in the original opinion cannot be waived, “provided such stipulation was lawful in the first place.”
[6] It is contended that the stipulation is not valid because not part of the schedule filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and for that reason is void. It is not contended that there were not two rates, one at the carrier’s risk and one at the shipper’s risk, as stated in the contract of shipment. It is recited therein that the rate charged “being less than the rate charged for shipments at carrier’s risk for which reduced rates and other consideration, it is mutually agreed between the parties hereto as follows.” Several paragraphs follow this stipulation, among which is the fifteenth paragraph quoted in the original opinion, with reference to bringing suits for injuries received within six months. The live stock tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and introduced in evidence, among other things, provides:
“The rates named in this tariff apply only on shipments of live stock when contracts are executed by the shippers and the carriers on the blank furnished by the carriers and are based on declared valuation by the shipper at the time the contract is signed, not to exceed the following: Each horse, $100.00'; each ox, bull or steer, $50.00. * * * Where the declared valuation exceeds the above an addition of ten per cent, will be made to the rate for each one hundred per cent, (dollars?) or fraction thereof of additional valuation per head.”
The contract or bill of lading in this case shows the valuation on the stock shipped was, for each horse $100, each ox, bull, or steer $50, etc.; that is, that the lower rate was agreed to and accepted by the shipper, in consideration of which he agreed to the six months’ limitation clause. Upon the trial of this case in the court below it was admitted by appellant “that the stipulation of the live stock contract with regard to giving notice of loss or injury and of bringing suit is not included in the tariff that this company had on file at that time.” Section 1 (Comp. St. 1916, § 8563) of the Interstate Commerce Act defines “transportation.” Section 6 (section 8569) requires the carrier *777to file with the Interstate Commerce Commission—
“schedules showing all the rates, fares and charges for transportation between different points. * * * The schedules * * * shall * * * state separately all terminal charges, * * * and all other charges which the .Commission may require, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules or regulations which in any wise change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rate, fares, and charges, or the value of the service rendered to the passenger, shipper, or consignee. * * * The provisions of this section shall apply to all traffic, transportation, and facilities defined in this act.”
The amendment of section 20 (section 8604a) known as the Carmack Amendment, provides that:
The common carrier receiving freight- for transportation “shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, * * * and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation * * * shall exempt such common carrier, * * * from the liability hereby imposed.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has held frequently under the above act of Congress a stipulation limiting the time for bringing suit and for notice is valid and binding, and should be enforced. However, it is urged here that unless such limitation is filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission with its schedule of rates that such provision is void; that as it was agreed on at the trial that the stipulation was not included in the tariff filed by appellant with the Commission, no presumption will be indulged in favor of the carrier. It will be noted that it is not- agreed that the contract of shipment was not on file, with the Commission, but only that it was not filed with the schedule rates. It will be observed in the act that Congress treated the subject of tariff rates, fares, and charges separate from the contract or agreement between the carrier and shipper. It is true the contract to be valid must be based upon a valid rate, filed with the Commission, together with all privileges or facilities, and any rule or regulation which changes, affects, or determines any part of the rate or value of the services rendered the shipper. The rules, regulations, or service by the carrier, rendered to the shipper, which affect the rate are to be filed. It is not the stipulation in the contract which the shipper is to perform that is to be filed. The carrier in this case, however, filed the rate upon declared valuation when the contracts are executed, ’ upon blanks furnished by the carriers. The shipper declared the valuation as per the rate filed, and signed the contract upon the blank furnished. The rules and regulations were filed affecting the rate, thereby complying with the statute. The shipper, on his part, agreed after the transportation was complete, if damaged, he would sue for his damages within six months. This we do not interpret as service, privilege, or facilities rendered the shipper in the transportation, but was an obligation on the shipper to be performed in consideration of the lower rate given him for the transportation. In the case of Railway Co. v. Dettlebach, 239 U. S. 588, 36 Sup. Ct. 178, 60 L. Ed. 453, the goods were received for transportation under the terms of the bill of lading prepared in a form approved and recommended by the Interstate Commerce Commission. The court said in that case:
“The recommendation of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the adoption of the uniform bill of lading was, of course, made in view of this legislation; and, while not intended to be and not in law binding upon the carriers, it is entitled to some weight.”
The provision in that case fixed the charges in advance for storage as warehouseman. Schedules of tariff rates properly filed to that effect were not shown, and the contract was considered by the court as evidencing a proper charge, including such service. The case we think also suggests that it was not required of the carrier to file with the Commission the form of the contract or its various stipulations. This view is further strengthened by the case of Railway Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632, 36 Sup. Ct. p. 460, 60 L. Ed. 836. The tariff rules there introduced provided that the reduced rates would “apply on property shipped subject to the condition of carrier’s bill of lading.” The particular clause of the bill of lading in issue in that case does not appear from the opinion to have been filed with the schedule, but the court held, while the goods are retained after notice of arrival, as stipulated in the bill of lading, under filed regulations, the conditions were fixed, and the parties could not substitute therefor a special agreement. The rules filed in this case were that the tariff fixed applied' on the shipment of live stock “where contracts are executed by the shipper and carrier on the blanks furnished by the carriers.” The conditions fixed by the contract to be complied with after termination of the shipment are stipulated in the contract under the filed regulations and the parties cannot substitute a special agreement to waive the stipulation in the contract. It is insisted that in the case of Railway Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690, it is intimated that the live stock contract should be part of the rates filed. 'We do not so regard the case. In discussing the question arriving at the damages to the shipment on stock valued by agreement, the court said that the rate sheet did not include the contract sued on, but this was of no vital significance. However, the court stated in that case that there was no objection made in the court below. It is there further said:
“In any event, the rate sheets do provide for a choice between two rates; one with and one-without declared valuation.”
The Supreme Court recognizes it as settled that the rights and liabilities in connection with shipment depend upon the acts of Congress, the bill of lading, and common-law principles accepted and in force by the federal courts. In order to determine the va*778lidity and effect of restrictions upon liability by the bill of lading, it is important to consider the schedules on file. Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 36 Sup. Ct. 410, 60 L. Ed. 825, L. R. A. 1917A, 197. It appears the Interstate Commerce Commission has approved and recommended a form for a bill of lading. Western Transit Co. v. Leslie, 242 U. S. 448, 37 Sup. Ct. 133, 61 L. Ed. 423. As we understand, however, the Commission disclaimed the power to prescribe the forms of the bill and enforce it, but simply recommended a form. Section 1 of this act makes it the duty of the carrier to establish and enforce just rules, etc. “The issuance, form and substance of tickets, receipts and bills of lading,” but the form and substance of the bill of lading is not required to be filed with the Commission, as we read the act. It is only the schedule of the rates and rules and regulations with reference to the transportation. The holding of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in so far as we have been able to ascertain, has left with the carriers the form of the bill of lading where the act placed it. In so far as we have been able to find, the Supreme Court has not held a bill of lading containing limitations void as to such because not filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The universal holding appears to be when the bill of lading or contract is based upon a tariff duly filed and approved and when in consideration of the lower rate so filed the contract is entered into, the stipulation is valid. Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 36 Sup. Ct. 542, 60 L. Ed. 948, and authorities cited; Railway Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319, 36 Sup. Ct. 555, 60 L. Ed. 1022, L. R. A. 1917A, 265.
It is urged by appellee that the case of Erie Railway Co. v. Stone, 244 U. S. 332, 37 Sup. Ct. 633, 61 L. Ed. 1173, holds that the bill of lading limiting liability must be duly published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. Possibly some of the expressions of the opinion may be given that interpretation. It occurs to, us, however, that this case only holds that the right to contract for limited liability is based upon tariff classification duly published, and does not also undertake to hold that the form of the bill of lading shall also be published as part of the tariff and rules governing transportation. We think the amendment of section 20 of this act (sections 8604a, 8604aa, U. S. Compiled Statutes 1916, vol. 8) with reference to bills of lading evidence the fact that Congress did not consider that the bill of lading had to be filed with the Commission and published as part of the rate. The amendment now declares such stipulation for notice and limitation void if less than a certain time specified in the act. This amendment was not in effect at the-time of the shipment in this case.
The presentation of the question upon motion by appellee has been forceful, and it appears to us may be a reasonable interpretation of the statute, but after examining quite a number -of cases by the Supreme Court we find no case passing upon provisions of like kind that will justify us in reaching the conclusion that that court has ever placed its holding as to the validity of such limitations in bills of lading upon the ground that such provision must first be filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission as part of the carrier’s rate sheet
The motion will be overruled.
BOYCE, J., not sitting.