Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

as the released value of the property, in which case such declaration or agreement shall have no other effect than to limit liability and recovery to an amount not exceeding the value so declared or released, and shall not, so far as relates to values, be held to be a violation of section ten of this Act to regulate commerce, as amended; and any tariff schedule which may be filed with the Commission pursuant to such order shall contain specific reference thereto and may establish rates varying with the value so declared or agreed upon; and the Commission is hereby empowered to make such order in cases where rates dependent upon and varying with declared or agreed values would, in its opinion, be just and reasonable under the circumstances and conditions surrounding the transportation."

"The term 'ordinary live-stock'," says the statute, "shall include all cattle, swine, sheep, goats, horses and mules, except such as are chiefly valuable for breeding, racing, show purposes or other special purposes.

[ocr errors]

§ 227. Liability for Delay in Transit.-Under the Acts to Regulate Commerce carriers of interstate freight are liable for "loss, damage, or injury" to the property transported. These words in the statute are comprehensive enough to embrace responsibility for a loss resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier's duty as to any part of the agreed transportation. An initial or delivering carrier is, therefore, liable for delay occurring on the line of a connecting carrier, although there may be no physical damage to the property. In a leading decision, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the words "loss, damage, or injury" included liability for loss of market due to a negligent delay on the line of a connecting carrier. In New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange,278 it was said:

"It is said that there is a different responsibility on the part of the carrier with respect to delay from that which exists where there is a failure to carry safely, but the difference is with respect to the measure of the carriers' ob

278 New York, P. & N. R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Produce Exchange, 240

U. S. 34, 60 L. Ed. 511, 36 Sup. Ct. 230.

ligation; the duty to transport with reasonable dispatch is none the less an integral part of the normal undertaking of the carrier.”

§ 228. Statutory Retention of Existing Remedies.-The proviso "that nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law" is construed to relate to existing federal law and not to any state law. However, the liability of intermediate connecting carriers under the common law is not abrogated.279 The inadvisability of relying on this right is stated in Section 221, ante. Of course, the statute applies only to interstate shipments.

§ 229. Effect of Failure to Issue Bill of Lading.—The statute makes it the duty of the carrier "receiving property for transportation" to "issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor." Whether or not a bill of lading is issued, the initial carrier receiving goods to be transported in that commerce described in paragraph (11) of Section 20 is nevertheless liable for the loss of, or injury to, the property so received, whether caused by its own negligence or that of a connecting carrier.280 The failure to issue such bill of lading leaves applicable, by implication, the uniform bill of lading prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.281

§ 230. The Bill-of-Lading Contract Ordinarily Binds All Parties. In the absence of fraud, the execution of a bill of lading by the initial carrier on request of the shipper has the effect of binding all parties to the transaction.282 This is

279 Eisman v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 180 Iowa 759, 163 N. W. 627.

V.

280 International Watch Co. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (1910), 78 A. 49, 80 N. J. Law, 553, affirmed (1911), 82 A. 730, 82 N. J. Law, 459; Southern Express Co. v. Malone (1918), 78 So. 408, 16 Ala. App. 414, certiorari denied (1918), 78 So. 990, 201 Ala. 740. See also U. S. C. A., Title 49, Sec. 20 (11), Note 87.

281 Western Maryland Ry. Co. v. Cross (1924), 123 S. E. 572, 96 W. Va.

666; Standard Combed Thread Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (1915), 88 N. J. Law, 257, 95 A. 1002; Aman v. Dover & S. R. Co. (1920), 102 S. E. 392, 179 N. C. 310; New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lazarus (C. C. A. N. Y. 1922), 278 F. 900, reversing (D. C. 1921) 271 F. 93.

282 Bills of Lading, 52 I. C. C. 671; The Henry B. Hyde, 82 Fed. 681; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. S. P. Co.. 102 I. C. C. 331.

true even where the shipper fails to sign the bill of lading, but accepts the same without protest or dissent.283 It follows, therefore, that neither the consignee nor an intermediate or delivering carrier can escape the obligations or avoid the terms of a bill of lading when properly executed by and between the initial carrier and the shipper.

§ 231. Liability for Freight Charges Under Standard Bills of Lading. The shipper is not absolutely liable, as a matter of law, for the freight charges on a shipment which he makes. The question of liability for freight charges may be made the subject of contract between the shipper and the initial carrier whereby the shipper is relieved of liability for all or a part of the freight charges.284 The standard bill of lading prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission contains a blank form for the execution of the special contract between the shipper and the carrier concerning the matter of liability for freight charges. When properly executed, this special contract is binding on all parties.

§ 232. Carrier Liable for Execution of Bill of Lading Containing Contradictory or Impossible Provisions.-The obligation rests upon a carrier to refrain from executing a bill of lading which contains provisions that cannot lawfully be complied with or that are contradictory and impossible of execution, and it is liable for damages resulting from the execution of such a bill of lading.285

§ 233. Foreign Shipments.-While under the Carmack Amendment shipments to foreign territory were not included, the Cummins Amendment of 1915 extended the provision to embrace liability for loss of, or damage to, goods received

283 The Henry B. Hyde, 82 Fed. 681, and cases therein cited.

284 L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Cent. I. & C. Co., 265 U. S. 59, 68 L. Ed. 900, 44 Sup. Ct. 441. Unless special contract exists, consignee becomes primarily liable for freight charges if and when he accepts shipment, P. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 63 L. Ed. 1151, 40 Sup. Ct. 27.

285 Hutton & Bourbonnais Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 50 I. C. C. 434; Republic of France v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 77 I. C. C. 383; Dixie Portland Cement Co. v. Director Gen'l, 83 I. C. C. 417; Empire Lbr. Co. V. Director Gen 'l, 88 I. C. C. 424.

in the United States to be shipped to an adjacent foreign country, notwithstanding that the shipment may be partly on the high seas.286 Cuba, it has been held, is not an adjacent foreign country within the meaning of this rule.287 To nonadjacent foreign countries, the rule is not applicable,288 nor to shipments entirely by water,280 nor to shipments by water and rail where no common arrangement under Section 1 of the Act existed between the steamship and railroad companies.200

§ 234. Intrastate Shipments.-Except to prevent an unlawful relationship between rates, rules, and practices in interstate and intrastate commerce, neither Congress nor the Interstate Commerce Commission has any jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce. However, if an intrastate shipment moves under a tariff and classification made necessary to comply with an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission removing an unlawful discrimination against interstate commerce, such transportation is subject to the provisions of the federal statute.291 While it appears that this rule is based more on the manner of the tariff publication than on the substance of the transportation, the power of the Congress within the scope of the commerce clause of the Constitution is paramount, and where it is necessary, in order to make fully effective an order removing unjust discrimination against interstate commerce, that an intrastate movement must be subject to national regulation, that regulation is authorized.

286 Davis v. Krippendorf-Dittman Co. (1922), 17 Ohio App. 76.

287 Southern R. Co. v. Southgate (1927), 140 S. E. 661, 149 Va. 683.

288 A. L. Wolff & Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Texas (Tex. Civ. App. 1926), 283 S. W. 250, affirmed (Com. App. 1927), 289 S. W. 1000.

289 Florida Cotton Oil Co. v. Clyde Steamship Co. (1920), 125 N. E. 855,

235 Mass. 10; Philadelphia Tapestry Mills v. New England S. S. Co. (1925), 251 Mass. 270, 146 N. E. 777.

290 Levy v. Old Domnion S. S. Co. (1915), 154 N. Y. S. 227, 91 Mise. Rep. 35.

291 Lancaster v. McCarty (1925), 267 U. S. 427, 69 L. Ed. 696, 45 Sup. Ct. 342, reversing (Tex. Civ. App. 1923), 248 S. E. 816.

ENFORCEMENT BY THE COMMISSION OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.

$235. General Statement of the Functions of the Interstate Commerce Com

236.

mission.

Appointment and General Duties of the Commission.

237. Switch Connections-Duty of Carriers.

238. Switch Connections-Power of the Commission.

239. Industrial Switches and Railways.

240. Switch Connections with Carriers by Water. 241. Through Routes.

242. Division of Joint Rate.

243.

244.

Allowance to Shippers for Services and Facilities.
Distribution of Cars.

245. Furnishing Cars-Car Service.

246. Long-and-Short-Haul Provisions, History of. Relationship of Intermediate and Through Rates. Water Competition.

247.

248.

249.

250.

251.

252.

253.

254.

255.

256.

Power of the Commission Under the Fourth Section.
Ownership of Water Carriers by Railroads.

The Commission's Duty with Reference to Schedule of Rates.
Bills of Lading.

Damages.

Damages-Power of the Commission to Make Award of.

Awards of Damages for Charging an Unjust and Unreasonable Rate.
Awards of Damages for Unlawful Discrimination.

257. Damages Under the Fourth Section.

258. Damages for Misrouting.

[blocks in formation]

267.

268.

269.

General Investigations by the Commission.
Same Subject-Amendments of 1910 and 1920.

Commission May Ask the Aid of the Courts to Enforce the Law. 270. Commission Has Power to Prescribe Rates for the Future. Suspension of Rates, Regulations and Practices.

271.

[blocks in formation]
« ПредишнаНапред »