17

This presumption, however, that the consignee is the owner of the goods on whose behalf the consignor has made the contract of transportation, is merely a prima facie one, and is hence rebuttable.15 When it is rebutted, then, of course the consignee cannot sue the carrier on the contract.1 Whether or not the delivery of the goods to the carrier by the consignor passes title to the goods depends primarily on the intention of the parties. Such a delivery, in pursuance of previous instructions from the consignee, ordinarily passes title, and thus enables the consignee to sue on the contract.18 This is not the case, however, when such delivery is without instructions from the consignee, or when the goods are sent on approval,20 or when the title, for any reason, does not pass to the consignee.21 In these cases, then, the consignee is not the owner, and hence he can bring no suit against the carrier on the

19

15 Sweet v. Barney, 23 N. Y. 335; Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; Everett v. Saltus, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 474; Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 How. 100, 15 L. Ed. 58; Congar v. Galena & C. U. R. Co., 17 Wis. 477, 486; Smith v. Lewis, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 229; Southern Exp. Co. v. Caperton, 44 Ala. 101, 4 Am. Rep. 118; South & N. A. R. Co. v. Wood, 72 Ala. 451; Bonner v. Marsh, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 376; Stanton v. Eager, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 467; Bushel v. Wheeler, 15 Q. B. (Eng.) 442. See St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Okl. 248, 120 Pac. 1090, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 309; White v. Schweitzer, 147 App. Div. 544, 132 N. Y. Supp. 644; Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Caruthers (Tex. Civ. App.) 157 S. W. 238.

16 Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Pa. 393; Hays v. Stone, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 128; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Consolidated Cattle Co., 59 Kan. 111, 52 Pac. 71; Mitchell v. Ede, 11 Adol. & E. (Eng.) 888. See, also, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Okl. 248, 120 Pac. 1090, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 309.

17 This and similar questions belong to the law of sales.

18 See American Sales Act, § 19, rule 4 (2); Williston on Sales, § 278; United States v. R. P. Andrews & Co., 207 U. S. 229, 28 Sup. Ct. 100, 52 L. Ed. 185; Prince v. Boston & L. R. Corp., 101 Mass. 542, 100 Am. Dec. 129; National Bank of Bristol v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 99 Md. 661, 59 Atl. 134, 105 Am. St. Rep. 321; Carthage v. Munsell, 203 Ill. 474, 67 N. E. 831; Plaff v. Pacific Exp. Co., 159 Ill. App. 493; Vale v. Bayle, Cowp. (Eng.) 294; Krulder v. Ellison, 47 N. Y. 36, 7 Am. Rep. 402; People v. Haynes, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 547, 28 Am. Dec. 530. Even though no particular carrier is named. Dutton v. Solomonson, 3 Bos. & P. (Eng.) 582; Cooke v. Ludlow, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. (Eng.) 119; Arnold v. Prout, 51 N. H. 587, 589; Garland v. Lane, 46 N. H. 245, 248; Woolsey v. Bailey, 27 N. H. 217; Smith v. Smith, Id. 244, 252; The Mary and Susan, 1 Wheat. 25, 4 L. Ed. 27; Dunlop v. Lambert, 6 Clark & F. (Eng.) 600. 19 Coats v. Chaplin, 3 Q. B. (Eng.) 483; Wilson v. Wilson, 26 Pa. 393; Hays v. Stone, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 128; Stone v. Hayes, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 575.

20 American Sales Act, § 19, rule 3 (2); Williston on Sales, § 372; Swain v. Shepherd, 1 Moody & R. (Eng.) 223; Cook v. Gross, 60 App. Div. 446, 69 N. Y. Supp. 924; Hickman v. Schimp, 109 Pa. 16.

21 Coats v. Chaplin, 3 Q. B. (Eng.) 483; Coombs v. Railway Co., 3 Hurl. & N. (Eng.) 510, 27 L. J. Exch. (Eng.) 401; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Allen, 31 Okl. 248, 120 Pac. 1090, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 309.

contract of transportation; but this right is under the circumstances confined to the consignor.22

Suit in Tort by Owner or One Having an Interest in the Goods

By virtue of the fact that he is a common carrier of goods, the law imposes on such carrier certain duties.23 For a failure to perform these duties, the common carrier is liable to any person entitled to the performance of these duties. And any person who owns the goods which are transported by the carrier, or has an interest in the goods less than ownership, can insist upon the carrier's performing such duties as are imposed on him by law. It therefore follows that for any dereliction in his duty (which is a tort) either the owner of the goods or a person having an interest in the goods may maintain an action in tort against the carrier.24

This action is not on the contract of transportation, but is based on the tort of the carrier in not living up to the duties which the law considers as inherent in his relation of common carrier. Manifestly those having rights in the goods which are being transported are primarily interested in the performance of these duties, and they are the ones who suffer when the carrier departs from such duty. Apart, therefore, from remedies on the contract, the law gives

22 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Consolidated Cattle Co., 59 Kan. 111, 52 Pac. 71; Spence v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 92 Va. 102, 22 S. E. 815, 29 L. R. A. 578; Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590, 30 S. E. 555; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Allgood, 113 Ala. 163, 20 South. 986. 23 Ante, chapter X.

24 Blanchard v. Page, 8 Gray (Mass.) 281, 289; Griffith v. Ingledew, 6 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 429, 438, 9 Am. Dec. 444; Schlosser v. Great Northern R. Co., 20 N. D. 406, 127 N. W. 502; Waters v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 74 Miss. 534, 21 South. 240; Congar v. Galena & C. U. R. Co., 17 Wis. 477; Harvey v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 6 Mo. App. 585; P. Garvan v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 210 Mass. 275, 96 N. E. 717; Thompson v. Fargo, 49 N. Y. 188, 10 Am. Rep. 342. Suit by those having merely a special property in the goods: Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 32 Ill. App. 259; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 13 Ill. App. 490; Thompson v. Fargo, 44 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 176; Baltimore & P. Steamboat Co. v. Atkins, 22 Pa. 522; White v. Bascom, 28 Vt. 268; Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co. v. Frame, 6 Colo. 382. Mere borrower cannot sue. Lockhart v. Western & A. R. R., 73 Ga. 472, 54 Am. Rep. 883. Factors: Boston & M. R. Co. v. Warrior Mower Co., 76 Me. 251; Wolfe v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 97 Mo. 473, 11 S. W. 49, 3 L. R. A. 539, 10 Am. St. Rep. 331. Bailees: Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 546, 549, 20 Am. Rep. 227; Moran v. Portland Steam Packet Co., 35 Me. 55; Elkins v. Boston & M. R. Co., 19 N. H. 337, 51 Am. Dec. 184; Great Western R. Co. v. McComas, 33 Ill. 185, 187. A laundress delivering laundry to a carrier for transportation to the owner may maintain an action for its loss. Freeman v. Birch, 1 Nevile & M. 420, 3 Q. B. (Eng.) 492, 43 E. C. L. 835. Agents: Southern Exp. Co. v. Caperton, 44 Ala. 101, 4 Am. Rep. 118.

to those having a property (general or special) in the goods the privilege of suing the carrier in tort for a breach of his duty which causes them injury.25

The considerations just discussed are peculiarly applicable when the common carrier wrongfully refuses to accept goods tendered to him for transportation. This is purely a tort, and there is no contract action, because there is no contract.20 If, however (though this is very seldom the case), the carrier has expressly agreed to accept the goods, and then fails to do so, he may, of course, be sued for a breach of his contract to accept.27

Consignee, Having no Interest in the Goods, Cannot Sue

When the contract of shipment is made with the consignor, the consignee, who, having no interest in the goods, incurs no risk in the transportation, cannot maintain an action against the carrier.28 He cannot sue on the contract, for the contract is not made on his behalf, nor is the consignor his agent in making the contract. Neither can he sue in tort, for the carrier's duty is not owed to him

25 See cases cited in preceding note. Either the owner (the one who has the general property in the goods) or one with a special property in the goods may sue the carrier, but a recovery by either will bar a subsequent action by the other. Green v. Clarke, 12 N. Y. 343; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Miller, 32 Ill. App. 259; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Schwartz, 13 Ill. App. 490; Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 546, 549, 20 Am. Rep. 227; Elkins v. Boston & M. R. Co., 19 N. H. 337, 51 Am. Dec. 184; Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co. v. Frame, 6 Colo. 382; Southern Exp. Co. v. Caperton, 44 Ala. 101, 4 Am. Rep. 118; The Farmer v. McCraw, 26 Ala. 189, 72 Am. Dec. 718. The rule is that either the bailor or the bailee may sue, and, whichever first obtains damages, it is a full satisfaction. Murray v. Warner, 55 N. H. 546, 549, 20 Am. Rep. 227; Elkins v. Boston & M. R. Co., 19 N. H. 337, 51 Am. Dec. 184: White v. Bascom, 28 Vt. 268; Nicolls v. Bastard, 2 Cromp., M. & R. (Eng.) 659.

26 Pickford v. Railway Co., 8 Mees. & W. (Eng.) 372; Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488, 68 Am. Dec. 574; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682. Such actions are usually brought by the person offering the goods for carriage. Cobb v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 601; Lafaye v. Harris, 13 La. Ann. 553; Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539, 28 Am. Rep. 682; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind. App. 209, 31 N. E. 853.

27 Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hays, 49 Ind. 207; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491; Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. (C. C.) 20 Fed. 712.

28 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Allgood, 113 Ala. 163, 20 South. 986; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Cattle Co., 59 Kan. 111, 52 Pac. 71; Spence v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 92 Va. 102, 22 S. E. 815, 29 L. R. A. 578; Jarrett v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 74 Minn. 477, 77 N. W. 304; Bergner v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 13 Mo. App. 499; Duff v. Budd, 3 B. & B. (Eng.) 177; Brown v. Hodgson, 4 Taunt. (Eng.) 189; Southern Ry. Co. v. Miko, 136 Ga. 272, 71 S. E. 241.

and he suffers no injury when there is a breach of this duty. The consignee, under these circumstances, is barred of any action against the carrier.

THE FORM OF ACTION

155. The common carrier of goods may be sued either in contract (ex contractu) on his contract of transportation, or in tort

(ex delicto) for any breach of a duty imposed on him by law.

Originally, a common carrier's liability was thought to rest exclusively upon his common-law duty to receive the goods and to transport and deliver them safely. A breach of this duty constituted a tort, and an action in tort was the only proper remedy.20 The right of a shipper, however, to sue a common carrier upon his contract, was first recognized in the case of Dale v. Hall (1750)00 and it is now well established that there is a choice of remedies. The carrier may be sued either ex contractu for the breach of the contract of shipment, or ex delicto for the breach of his commonlaw duty.si

29 3 Hutch. Carr. § 1322; COGGS v. BERNARD, Ld. Raym. (Eng.) 909, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 1.

80 1 Wils. (Eng.) 281.

31 Denman v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 52 Neb. 140, 71 N. W. 967; Deierling v. Wabash R. Co., 163 Mo. App. 292, 146 S. W. 814; Orange County Bank v. Brown, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 158; Lamb v. Camden & A. R. & Transp. Co., 2 Daly (N. Y.) 454; Catlin v. Adirondack Co., 11 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 377; Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. McLoon, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 27; Smith v. Seward, 3 Pa. 342; Coles v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co., 41 Ill. App. 607; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. McCasland, 11 Ill. App. 491; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. v. Heath, 41 Ark. 476; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 59 Md. 390; Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Fort, 44 Miss. 423; School Dist. in Medfield v. Boston, H. & E. R. Co., 102 Mass. 552, 555, 3 Am. Rep. 502; The Queen of the Pacific (D. C.) 61 Fed. 213; Whittenton Mfg. Co. v. Memphis & O. R. P. Co. (C. C.) 21 Fed. 896; The Grapeshot (D. C.) 22 Fed. 123; The Samuel J. Christian (D. C.) 16 Fed. 796; Ansell v. Waterhouse, 6 Maule & S. (Eng.) 385, 2 Chit. 1, 18 E. C. L. 469. A special contract with the carrier will not preclude the shipper from suing in case without referring to the contract. Clark v. Richards, 1 Conn. 54, 59; Arnold v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 83 Ill. 273, 25 Am. Rep. 386; Clark v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 64 Mo. 440; Oxley v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. Ry. Co., 65 Mo. 629; Coles v. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. Co., 41 Ill. App. 607; Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pratt, 15 Ill. App. 177. But see Kimball v. Rutland & B. R. Co., 26 Vt. 247, 62 Am. Dec. 567. Generally damages for delay in shipment or loss of property while in a carrier's custody may be recovered either in an action ex contractu or one ex delicto at the option of the pleader. WERNICK v. ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO., 131 Mo. App. 37, 109 S. W. 1027,

The distinction between actions ex contractu and actions ex delicto was formerly of more importance than it now is. In states in which the antiquated common-law forms of action still obtain, the proper contract action is assumpsit; in tort, the action is trespass on the case.82 Under the system of Code pleading, there is but one form of civil action. Even in Code states, however, there are differences as to the pleadings between a cause of action in contract and one in tort, which make it frequently important to distinguish between the two. The considerations which prompt a pleader in making his election between proceeding ex contractu or ex delicto will be briefly discussed.

Advantages of an Action Ex Contractu

85

84

Under the common-law maxim "actio personalis moritur cum persona," tort actions perished on the death of either party.33 Actions on contract, however, survived, so that the action ex contractu, on the death of the plaintiff, passed to his personal representative. Again, the contract action of assumpsit was desirable against the carrier when the pleader wished to join the common counts in assumpsit, which could not be joined in an action ex delicto. Under the system of Code pleading, which permits the joinder in a single complaint of any number of causes of action arising out of contract, the carrier should be sued on the contract, if the pleader wishes to join other causes of action founded on contract.8 Statutes of limitations, which prescribe the time within Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 278. Where goods transported under a bill of lading were injured by fire, alleged to have resulted from the carrier's negligence, plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on a count alleging a cause of action in contract, as well as on a count in tort, though it could not recover on both. P. Garvan v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 210 Mass. 275, 96 N. E. 717. A shipper whose goods are lost during transit may sue in tort for a breach of the common-law duty of the carrier to deliver, which originates at the place of delivery, or he may sue for breach of the contract of transportation, or he may treat the carrier as a bailee and allege the specific tortious act by which the goods were lost, and found his right to recover thereon which originates at the place where the tortious act occurred. Merritt Creamery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 128 Mo. App. 420, 107 S. W. 462.

32 Holden v. Rutland R. Co., 72 Vt. 156, 47 Atl. 403, 82 Am. St. Rep. 926; Waters v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 74 Miss. 534, 21 South. 240. See cases cited in the preceding note.

33 Chamberlain v. Williamson, 2 M. & S. (Eng.) 408; Stebbins v. Palmer, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 71, 11 Am. Dec. 146. Under modern statutes and modern decisions, it is usually held that tort actions to property survive. See 1 Woerner on Administration, §§ 290–303. See, in general, as to the advantages of an action ex contractu, 3 Hutch. Carr. § 1327.

34 Hambly v. Trott, Cowp. 371, 375.

35 1 Chitty on Pl. 114; 3 Hutch. Carr. § 1327. 36 Bliss on Code Pleading (3d Ed.) §§ 127, 128.