Such stipulations as to notice of loss or damage do not apply to a misdelivery by the carrier.52

STATUTORY REGULATION OF CONTRACTS LIMITING CARRIER'S LIABILITY

135. In the federal congress and in the legislatures of many states, statutes have been passed regulating the power of the carrier to limit his common-law liability by contract. The effect of these statutes is to restrict, or take away entirely, the carrier's right thus to diminish his responsibility.

The discussion, in the preceding sections, of the carrier's right to limit his common-law liability presumes, of course, that this right on the part of the carrier is not affected by statute. In many states, however, this right is restricted or absolutely denied, either by statutes or the state Constitution. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss these statutes in detail; but it is important to note that these statutory and constitutional provisions do exist, and that, in cases falling within their terms, they seriously affect the principles which, in the absence of such provisions, ordinarily govern the carrier's right by contract to diminish the rigorous responsibility imposed on him by the common law.

In Kentucky 53 and Nebraska,5* the state Constitutions prohibit the carrier from limiting in any respect by contract his responsi

oral notice of damage given by a shipper, a waiver of the requirement of the contract of shipment that the shipper shall give notice in writing results. Carter & Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 34, 59 S. E. 209. The act of a carrier in sending at the request of the consignee tracers for a lost shipment after the time fixed in the bill of lading for service of notice on it of a claim for loss essential to hold the carrier liable does not amount to a waiver of its right to rely on its exemption if the goods are not located; there being nothing to indicate that the carrier did not intend to insist on its contract rights nor anything to show that the consignee was prejudiced. Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. C. F. Flanary & Co., 111 Va. 816, 69 S. E. 1107.

62 Ridgway Grain Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 228 Pa. 641, 77 Atl. 1007, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1178; Sheldon v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 61 Misc. Rep. 274, 113 N. Y. Supp. 676.

53 Const. Ky. § 196. For cases involving this provision, see The City of Clarksville (D. C.) 94 Fed. 201; Barnes v. Long Island R. Co., 191 N. Y. 528, 84 N. E. 1108; Southern Exp. Co. v. Fox & Logan, 131 Ky. 257, 115 S. W. 184, 117 S. W. 270, 133 Am. St. Rep. 241.

54 Const. Neb. art. 11, § 4; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Vandeventer, 26 Neb. 222, 41 N. W. 998, 3 L. R. A. 129; Pennsylvania Co. v. Kennard Glass & Paint Co., 59 Neb. 435, 81 N. W. 372; Wabash R. Co. v. Sharpe, 76 Neb. 424, 107 N. W. 758, 124 Am. St. Rep. 823.

57

55

bility as imposed by the common law. In Iowa, Texas," and, it seems, Virginia, a like result is obtained through statutes. In other states, the statutes either restrict the carrier's right to qualify his liability by contract, or require that the contract, to be valid, must be in a specified form or entered into with designated formalities, such as, for example, the signature of the shipper."0

59

58

Federal Interstate Commerce Act-Carmack Amendment

By far the most important of all the statutory provisions concerning the carrier's limitation of his liability by contract is the Carmack amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act. This provides: "That any common carrier, railroad or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contracts, receipt, rule or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed: Provided, that nothing in this section

55 Code Iowa 1897, § 2074; Lucas v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 112 Iowa, 594, 84 N. W. 673; Winn v. American Express Co., 149 Iowa, 259, 128 N. W. 663; Blair & Jackson v. Wells Fargo & Co., 155 Iowa, 190, 135 N. W. 615.

56 Rev. St. 1895, art. 320; British & Foreign Marine Ins. Co. v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 63 Tex. 475, 51 Am. Rep. 661; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Burke, 55 Tex. 323, 40 Am. Rep. 808; Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. International Marine Ins. Co., 84 Tex. 149, 19 S. W. 459; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Richmond, 94 Tex. 571, 63 S. E. 619.

57 Code 1904, § 1294c, subsec. 24; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Pew, 109 Va. 288, 64 S. E. 35; Southern Exp. Co. v. Keeler, 109 Va. 459, 64 S. E. 38; Adams Exp. Co. v. Green, 112 Va. 527, 72 S. E. 102.

58 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Sherlock, 59 Kan. 23, 51 Pac. 899; Cutter v. Wells Fargo & Co., 237 Ill. 247, 86 N. E. 695; Baum v. Long Island R. Co., 58 Misc. Rep. 34, 108 N. Y. Supp. 1113; Morgan v. Woolverton, 203 N. Y. 52, 96 N. E. 354, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 640.

59 Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Chapman, 133 III. 96, 24 N. E. 417, 8 L. R. A. 508, 23 Am. St. Rep. 587; Coats v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 239 Ill. 154, 87 N. E. 929; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Kavanaugh, 92 Fed. 56, 34 C. C. A. 203; Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., 135 Ga. 113, 68 S. E. 1039; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Rodgers, 16 N. M. 120, 113 Pac. 805.

60 Feige v. Michigan Cent. Ry. Co., 62 Mich. 1, 28 N. W. 685; Richmonà & A. R. Co. v. R. A. Patterson Tobacco Co., 92 Va. 670, 24 S. E. 261, 41 L. R. A. 511, affirmed 169 U. S. 311, 18 Sup. Ct. 335, 42 L. Ed. 759.

61 This is a part of section 20 of the act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 386 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169], as amended by Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. 595 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307]).

shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law." It is with the italicized portion that we are here chiefly concerned; the portion fixing liability on the initial carrier for the defaults of connecting carriers will be subsequently discussed in connection with connecting carriers."2

In connection with the portion italicized it will be seen that it contains two provisions. One of these prevents the initial carrier from relieving himself by contract, rule, or regulation of the liability imposed on him by the amendment for the defaults of connecting carriers. Another provision secures to the holder of the receipt or bill of lading "any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law."

The history of the amendment led many courts to the view that by "existing law” was meant here state laws, under which construction shippers secured the full benefit of state statutes and Constitutions forbidding any limitation by contract on the carrier's part of his full common-law liability.63 In recent cases, however, "existing law" is held by the United States Supreme Court to mean, not state law, but federal law. It is further held that the effect of the Carmack amendment is to withdraw contracts for interstate shipments entirely from the influence of state regulation and to bring them under one uniform rule or law."

66

64

The following language is used by Justice Lurton in a very recent case: "The liability sought to be enforced is the 'liability' of an interstate carrier for loss or damage under an interstate. contract of shipment declared by the Carmack amendment of the Hepburn Act of 1906 [Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 7, pars. 11, 12, 34 Stat. 595 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307)]. The validity of any stipulation in such a contract which involves a construction

62 See post, pp. 451-452.

63 See article contending strongly for this view in 11 Mich. Law Rev. 460, by Prof. E. C. Goddard; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Rodgers, 16 N. M. 120, 113 Pac. 805; Uber v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 151 Wis. 431, 138 N. W. 57; Latta v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 172 Fed. 850, 97 C. C. A. 198; Adams Exp. Co. v. Green, 112 Va. 527, 72 S. E. 102.

64 ADAMS EXP. CO. v. CRONINGER, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 228; Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co. v. Latta, 226 U. S. 519, 33 Sup. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 328; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, 33 Sup. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 323; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 Sup. Ct. 391, 57 L. Ed. 683; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690.

65 See cases cited in preceding note, particularly the last two cases.

66 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 672, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690.

of the statute, and the validity of a limitation thereby imposed, is a federal question, to be determined under the general common law, and, as such, is withdrawn from the field of state law or legislation. The liability imposed by the statute is the liability imposed by the common law upon a common carrier, and may be limited or qualified by special contract with the shipper, provided the limitation or qualification be just and reasonable and does not exempt from loss or responsibility due to negligence." "

67

It is held that the Carmack amendment does not forbid the limitation of liability, in case of loss or damage, to a valuation agreed on for the purpose of determining which of two lawful alternative rates shall be applied to the particular shipment. The amendment also permits reasonable contracts as to the time within which suit must be brought after the happening of the loss or injury."9

68

67 To sustain this, the court cited the following cases: ADAMS EXP. CO. v. CRONINGER, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 228; Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59, 33 Sup. Ct. 192, 57 L. Ed. 417; York Mfg. Co. v. Illinois C. R. Co., 3 Wall. 107, 18 L. Ed. 170; New York C. R. Co. v. Lockwood, 17 Wall. 357, 21 L. Ed. 627; SOUTHERN EXP. CO. v. CALDWELL, 21 Wall. 264, 267, 22 L. Ed. 556, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 226; Hart v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 112 U. S. 331, 5 Sup. Ct. 151, 28 L. Ed. 717.

68 Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 Sup. Ct. 391, 57 L. Ed. 683. See, also, cases cited in note 64.

69 Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690.

CHAPTER XII

COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMON CARRIER OF GOODS

136. Commencement of the Common Carrier's Liability-Delivery to the

137.

138.

Carrier.

Acceptance by the Carrier.

Evidence of Delivery and Acceptance.

139. Termination of the Common Carrier's Liability-In General.

COMMENCEMENT OF THE COMMON CARRIER'S LIABILITY-DELIVERY TO THE CARRIER

136. The extraordinary liability of the common carrier attaches only from the time when the goods are delivered to, and accepted by, the carrier for immediate transportation.

Delivery for Immediate Transportation

We have already seen that the duties of the ordinary bailment, arising from that relation, begin only when there has been a delivery of the goods to such bailee. In the case of the common carrier, though, in order that his unusual liability may attach, there must be, not only a delivery of the goods to the carrier, but also a delivery for immediate transportation. This delivery must, in

1 Ante, § 10.

2 Michigan Southern & N. I. R. Co. v. Shurtz, 7 Mich. 515; Grand Tower Mfg. & Transp. Co. v. Ullman, 89 Ill. 244; Clarke v. Needles, 25 Pa. 338; Merriam v. Hartford & N. H. R. Co., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344; Blossom v. Griffin, 13 N. Y. 569, 67 Am. Dec. 75; Evershed v. Railway Co., 47 Law J. Q. B. (Eng.) 284, 3 Q. B. Div. 134; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 60 Ark. 333, 30 S. W. 419, 46 Am. St. Rep. 202; London & L. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rome, W. & O. R. Co., 144 N. Y. 200, 39 N. E. 79, 43 Am. St. Rep. 752; Id., 68 Hun, 598, 23 N. Y. Supp. 231; Stewart v. Gracy, 93 Tenn. 314, 27 S. W. 664; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Trawick, SO Tex. 270, 15 S. W. 568, 18 S. W. 948; McCullough v. Wabash Western Ry. Co., 34 Mo. App. 23; Barron v. Eldredge, 100 Mass. 455, 1 Am. Rep. 126; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Smyser, 38 Ill. 354, 87 Am. Dec. 301; TATE v. YAZOO & M. V. R. CO., 78 Miss. 842, 29 South. 392, 84 Am. St. Rep. 649, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 232; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Cavendar, 170 Ala. 601, 54 South.