Court Opinion

ID: 9418387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:24:15.515316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:02.448617
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McReynolds
concurring.
I concur in the conclusion that the judgment below must be reversed. Circumstances disclosed by the record and not discussed in the opinion, I think, require this result. But the broad declaration that the parties to a bill of lading cannot waive its terms nor can the carrier; by its conduct, give the shipper the right to ignore them goes beyond what is necessary to the decision and I am not prepared to assent to it as a proposition of law.
*483Suit was originally brought against the initial line (The Santa Fe) and connecting ones — Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. and Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway — the claim being based upon the implied obligation arising out of delivery and acceptance of the horses by the former for through interstate carriage. In his pleadings the shipper expressly denied validity of all bills of lading — one issued by the Santa Fe and one by each of the petitioners. Of course, under the rule approved in Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383, he could have relied upon the first bill; but it does not follow that if, during transit, a connecting carrier declined to recognize the original agreement for through transportation and refused to proceed thereunder, he had no power to acquiesce, take possession of the animals and re-ship under another contract with such carrier not subject to avoidance by it. And if, in the present cause, instead of repudiating the bills of lading issued by connecting roads he had relied upon them the question presented would be a very different one, decision of which is not now demanded.
Me. Justice Van Devantee joins in this opinion.