SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
C. D. SCHENCK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Seaboard Air Line Railway appeals a damages judgment for loss of household goods during transit. The court affirmed the verdict but reduced the recoverable damages to the declared value in the bill of lading ($200) rather than the jury's verdict ($255), holding that parties are bound by contract limitations on carrier liability.
The court held that both shipper and carrier are bound by the contract of shipment, and recovery is limited to the value declared in the bill of lading. The recoverable damages were limited to $200, not the $255 jury verdict, based on the contractual limitation.
“Common honesty, good faith, and fair dealing, it seems to the writer, would limit the plaintiff in his .recovery to the value as declared by him though made at a time when it was to his advantage to make it small, and now greatly to his disadvantage when suing for the recovery of damages for the loss of his property by one having exclusive control of it”
Establishes the equitable principle limiting recovery to declared value in the contract
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchenck shipped household goods via Seaboard Air Line Railway as a common carrier. The goods were damaged in transit. The bill of lading fixed the wei…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Carrier Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
This case comes to this Court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Marion County in a case wherein the defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error for damage alleged to have occurred to a shipment of household goods while in transit by the defendant as a common carrier. There was enough evidence to warrant the jury in returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
The damage recoverable by the plaintiff, however, was limited in this case by the contract in the form of a bill of lading. That contract fixed the weight of the goods at Two Thousand (2000) pounds and the value at ten cents per pound. The judgment was for Two Hundred and Fifty-five ($255.00) Dollars. The plaintiff and defendant were each bound by the contract of shipment in this case. A. C. L. R. Co. v. Dexter & Conner, 50 Fla. 180, 39 So. R. 634; Noone v. Sou. Express Co. 79 Fla. 25, 83 So. R. 607. In the latter cited case Judge Horne, the writer of the opinion therein, says:
Common honesty, good faith, and fair dealing, it seems to the writer, would limit the plaintiff in his .recovery to the value as declared by him though made at a time when it was to his advantage to make it small, and now greatly to his disadvantage when suing for the recovery of damages for the loss of his property by one having exclusive control of it; and in the opinion of the writer the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed.
The recoverable value of the goods as limited by the contract between the parties in this case was Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars.
If within thirty days after the filing of the mandate in the trial court, the plaintiff will enter remittitur of Fifty-five ($55.00) Dollars of the amount, the judgment will stand affirmed for Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. Otherwise, the judgment is reversed for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
Whitfield, P. J. and Strum, J., concur. Terrell, C. J. and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allied van Lines, Inc. v. Ila M. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1977)…t, or even read or knew of its terms and conditions. They are fully bound thereby, and are estopped from gainsaying or repudiating it. The Dexter decision has been followed in an unbroken line of Florida cases. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Schenck, 97 Fla. 16, 119 So. 517 (1929); Noone v. Southern Express Co., 79 Fla. 25, 83 So. 607 (1920). Federal law is in accord. American Express Company v. U. S. Horseshoe Co., 244 U.S. 58, 37 S.Ct. 595, 61 L.Ed. 990 (1917); Rocky Ford Moving Vans, Inc. v. United Sta…
Authorities Cited
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Dexter, 50 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1905)
- Noone v. S. Express Co., 79 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1920)