AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY
v.
MULLINS

U.S. | 1909-02-23
No. 77
212 U.S. 311 Supreme Court of the United States (1909) Caution
Also reported at: 53 L. Ed. 525 · 29 S. Ct. 381 · 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1815 · SCDB 1908-079
Cited by 38 cases

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.

Synopsis

American Express Company, a carrier, transported goods to Kansas where they were seized by judicial process and destroyed pursuant to a judgment by default. When the owner sued American Express in Kentucky for the loss, the Kentucky court refused to give full faith and credit to the Kansas judgment, finding the carrier had fraudulently failed to defend its possessory rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a carrier may notify the property owner to defend against judicial proceedings and is relieved of liability once the owner assumes the defense, and that a judgment cannot be impeached merely by showing it was based on a mistake of law.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brewer,

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

This court has jurisdiction because of the claim distinctly made in the Kentucky court that giving full faith and credit to the judgment of the Kansas court would prevent a recovery against thé company, a claim which was expressly , denied by the Kentucky court. Green v. Van Buskerk, 7 Wall. 139, 145; Hancock National Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640, 642; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 293.

While it is the duty of a carrier to safely carry and promptly deliver to the consignee the goods entrusted to its care, yet that duty does not call upon it to' forcibly resist the judicial proceedings in the courts of the. State into or through which it is carrying them. The company carried the goods to Kansas in obedience to the terms of the .shipment. On arrival in that State they were taken by judicial process out of its possession and destroyed, the process being issued in a proceeding in the nature of one in rem. Undoubtedly, it was authorized to appear in the Kansas court and contest 'for the rightfulness of its possession, but it might also notify the owner of the property and call upon him to carry on the litigation. This it did; notified him in time, and received from him an assurance that he would contest the legality of the seizure. This relieved the company from further responsibility, and the owner can no longer complain of it because the judgment of the Kansas court seized and disposed of the property. Stiles v. Davis, 1 Black, 101; Wells v. Maine Steamship Company, 4 Cliff. 228; Edwards v. White Line Transit Company, 104 Massachusetts, 159; Bliven v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 403; Ohio & Mississippi Ry. Co. v. Yohe, 51 Indiana, 181; Savannah &c. R. R. Co. v. Wilcox, Gibbs & Co., 48 Georgia, 432; Railroad Company v. O’Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489, 501.

In the opinion of the judge of the Kentucky Circuit Court-it was said:

“The court is of the opinion that the conduct of the defendant in permitting the goods to. be seized and destroyed under a judgment by default, as disclosed by its answer, without defending and asserting its rights as a carrier, which its duty as carrier required it to do, is in effect, a fraud,-and certainly no judgment suffered to be rendered by the consent, connivance or fraud of the carrier can be relied upon to relieve the person by whose consent, connivance or fraud it was rendered from a legal obligation.”

It is undoubtedly true that if the carrier, through conniv'ance or fraud,. permits a judgment to be rendered against it, such judgment cannot be invoked by it as a bar to an action brought by the owner of the goods. But there is nothing in the answer, a demurrer to which was sustained, indicating any consent, connivance or fraud, and this court will determine for itself whether there is anything in the record which shows any such consent, connivance or fraud. Harris v. Balk, 198 U. S. 215.

It was further suggested in the opinion of the judge of the Kentucky court that the Kansas judgment was wrong and in conflict with the decision of this court in American Express Company v. Iowa, 196 U. S. 133. But as held in Fauntleroy v. Lum, 210 U. S. 230, 237:

“A judgment is conclusive as to all the media concludendiUnited States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 192 U. S. 355; and it needs no authority to show that it cannot be impeached either in or out of the State by showing that it was based upon a mistake of the. law.”. We are of opinion that the Circuit Court of Kentucky erred, and its

Judgment is reversed and the case remanded to that court for . further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • Hammers v. S. Express Co., 80 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1920)
    …ot negligent or at fault in yielding to the official seizure of the goods. See 5 C. J. 434; Spaulding v. Preston, 21 Vt. 9; Getchell v. Page, 103 Me. 387, 69 Atl. Rep. 624, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 253 and Notes. See also American Express Co. v. Mullins, 212 U. S. 311, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 381, 15 Ann. Cas. 536; Ala [*59] bama & Vicksburg Ry. Co. v. Tirelli, 93 Miss. 797, 48 South. Rep. 962, 17 Ann. Cas. 879; Railroad Company v. O’Donnell, 49 Ohio St. 489, 32 N. E. Rep. 476, 34 Am. St. Rep. 579; Eager v. Jonesboro, L…
  • Milwaukee Cnty. v. M. E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268 (U.S. 1935)
    …although it was thought that the statute giving the recovery was not entitled to full faith and credit. Kenney [*278] v. Supreme Lodge, supra; compare Converse v. Hamilton, supra; Broderick v. Rosner, supra; see also American Express Co. v. Mullins, 212 U. S. 311. Appellee especially relies upon the statement in the opinion of this Court in Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., supra, that (292, 293): “ The essential nature and real foundation of a cause of action are not changed by recovering judgment upon…
  • Underwriters Nat'l Assurance Co. v. N.C. Life & Accident & Health Ins. Guar. Assn., 455 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1982)
    …error of law with respect to a particular question does not deprive its decision of the right to full faith and credit, so long as that court fully and fairly considered its jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. See American Express Co. v. Mullins, 212 U. S. 311 (1909). If the North Carolina Association wished to argue that the Rehabilitation Court should not have included the deposit as a general asset, and consequently should have declined to exercise jurisdiction over the deposit, it should have done s…

Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw