AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS COMPANY
v.
LEVEE

U.S. | 1923-10-22
No. 54
263 U.S. 19 Supreme Court of the United States (1923) Caution
Also reported at: 68 L. Ed. 140 · 44 S. Ct. 11 · SCDB 1923-005 · 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2712
Cited by 89 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 Railway Express Company agreed to carry a trunk for a shipper but failed to deliver it; the company's receipt limited its liability to fifty dollars, but Louisiana state courts held the company liable for the full value of $863.75 by applying a state law rule that placed the burden on the carrier to prove the loss resulted from uncontrollable events. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the limitation of liability clause was valid under federal law governing interstate commerce and could not be narrowed by state procedural rules or presumptions that contradicted the carrier's contractual protection.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Holmes

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit brought by the respondent in a court of Louisiana to recover the actual value of a trunk and its contents, weighing one hundred pounds or less, delivered ilto the petitioner for carriage from Madisonville, Texas, to. Thibodaux, Louisiana, but not delivered by the latter. The plaintiff’s petition set forth the receipt given by the Company, which was in the usual form approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and by which “ In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is dependent upon the value thereof and is based upon an agreed valuation of not exceeding fifty dollars for any shipment of 100 pounds or less . . . the shipper agrees that the company shall not be liable in any event for more than fifty dollars for any shipment of X100.pounds'or less”; with other language to the same effect. "At the trial the defendant relied upon this limitation of its liability. But the-Court following Article 2754 of the^Revised Civil Code of Louisiana held that the burden was on the carrier to “ prove that [the] ..loss or damage has been occasioned by. accidental and uncontrollable events,” and gave the plaintiff judgment for $863.75 and interest. The Court of Appeal took the same view and said that failure to make that proof was equivalent to an admission of converting the property to its own use. The defendant applied to the Supreme Court of the State for a writ of certiorari, but the writ was “ refused for the reason that the judgment is correct.”

- A preliminary objection is urged that the present writ of certiorari was addressed to the Court of Appeal and not to the Supreme Court. But under the Constitution of the State the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is discretionary, Art. 7, § 11, and although it was necessary for the petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction in order to make it certain that the case could go no' farther, Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U. S. 55, when the jurisdiction was declined the. Gourt of Appeal was shown to be the highest Court of the State in which a decision could be had. • Another section of the article cited required the Supreme Court to' give its reasons for refusing the writ, and therefore the fact that the reason happened to be an opinion upon the merits rather than some more technical consideration, did not take from the refusal its ostensible character of declining jurisdiction. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 366. Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 269. Of course the limit of time for applying to this Court was from the date when the writ of certiorari was refused.

Coming to the merits, the limitation of liability was valid, whatever may be the law of the State in cases within its control. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491. Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Burke, 255 U. S. 317, 321. American Ry. Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U. S. 584. The effect of the stipulation could not have been escaped by suing in trover and laying the failure to deliver as a conversion if that had been done. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 197. No more can it be escaped by a state law or decision that a failure to deliver shall establish a conversion unless explained. The law of the United States cannot be evaded by the forms of local practice. Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226, 230. Under the law of the United States governing interstate commerce the stipula-. tion constituted a defence to liability beyond fifty dollars, unless the plaintiff, should prove some facts that took.the case out of the protection of the contract. It had that scope in whatever Court it came up. The local rule applied as to the burden of proof narrowed the protection that the defendant had secured, and therefore contravened the law. See Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 512. Cincinnati, New Orleans of Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319, 328. E. Borneman & Co. v. New Orleans M. & C. R. Co., 145 La. 150. We think it. unnecessary to follow the arguments addressed to us into further detail.

Judgment reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (31 total)

  • THE Fla. Star v. B.J.F., 530 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 1988)
    …of review available in the courts of the state. The fact that review in the highest court is discretionary is irrelevant; the litigant still must seek such review in order to proceed to the United States Supreme Court. American Ry. Express v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19, 20-21, 44 S.Ct. 11, 12-13, 68 L.Ed. 140 (1923); Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U.S. 55, 56-57, 36 S.Ct. 26, 27, 60 L.Ed. 142 (1915). It is therefore essential to the preservation of a litigant’s right to United States Supreme Court review that he or sh…
    1 / 2
  • Guar. Tr. Co. v. York, 326 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1945)
    …ns pertaining to ex post facto legislation, the impairment of the obligations of contract, the enforcement of federal rights in the State courts and the multitudinous phases of the conflict of laws. See, e. g., American Railway Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U. S. 19, 21; Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 24-25; Worthen Co. v. Kavanaugh, 295 U. S. 56, 60; Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 248-49; and see Tunks, Categorization and Federalism: “Substance” and “Procedure” After Erie Railroad v. Tompkins…
  • Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1941)
    …of applying local doctrines of equity jurisdiction, a state court cannot defeat the proper assertion of a federal right. [*62] Resort to this Court may always be had to lay bare such an unwarranted frustration. American Railway Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U. S. 19; Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22. But such supervisory power by this Court over the determination of federal rights by state courts does not imply the denial of power in the state courts to make such determinations in the first instance. Second Empl…

Previewing 3 of 31 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