ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
KIRKENDALL
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.
Erie Railroad Company shipped a package for a customer that was lost; the railroad claimed the shipper had misrepresented the contents on the bill of lading to avoid paying higher shipping rates based on the actual value of the contents, and sought to limit its liability accordingly. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari because the petition failed to adequately describe the case and the record was too confused to determine the facts, particularly since the actual facts appeared to differ significantly from those presented in the petition.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent sued for the value of a lost package described by the bill of lading as “ 1 box bedding,” weighing 280 pounds, which actually contained “miscellaneous household articles, together with two quilts and two pair woolen blankets.” In defense the railroad insisted that he misrepresented the true character of the contents and thereby prevented it from obtaining a released valuation which, according to the rate paid and provisions of the published tariffs, would not have exceeded twenty-eight dollars.
The writ must be dismissed. The inducing petition failed to give adequate information concerning the record and essential facts. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Assn., 242 U. S. 430; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, 261 U. S. 387; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 608. The confused state of the record renders it difficult to ascertain the facts; maybe impossible. The petition for certiorari seemed to represent that at time of shipment the consignor accepted a bill of lading misdescribing the contents of the package and accepted a rate based upon limited liability, as he must have known.
It appears, however, that the shipper correctly reported the contents to the railroad, that he was not asked concerning value and made no representations relative thereto, that no rate was quoted, and that the undisclosed charges were to be collected at destination. The bill of lading contained no statement of value or rate and no provision restricting the carrier’s liability to less than the actual worth. Section 8 provides — “ The owner or consignee shall pay the freight and all other lawful charges accruing on said property, and, if required, shall pay the same before delivery. If upon inspection it is ascertained that the articles shipped are not those described in this bill of lading, the freight charges must be paid upon the articles actually shipped.” New York Central R. R. Co. v. Goldberg, 250 U. S. 85, 87.
The case tendered by the petition is radically different from the one presented upon the argument.
Writ of certiorari dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Rice v. Sioux City Mem'l Park Cemetery, Inc., 349 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1955)…5 U. S. 440; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, Inc., 261 U. S. 387; Southern Rower Co. v. North Carolina Pub. Serv. Co., 263 U. S. 508; Keller v. Adams-Campbell Co., 264 U. S. 314; Davis v. Currie, 266 U. S. 182; Erie R. Co. v. Kirkendall, 266 U. S. 185; Southern California Edison Co. v. Herminghaus, 275 U. S. 486; Mellon v. McKinley, 275 U. S. 492; Missouri-K.-T. R. Co. v. Texas, 275 U. S. 494; Ellison v. Koswig, 276 U. S. 598; Johnson v. Thornburgh, 276 U. S. 601; Carter Oil Co. v. Eli, 277 U. S…
-
Walker v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., Inc., 193 F.2d 772 (2d Cir. 1952)…e whether they in fact could have been, and it would have been improper to take the issue from them. Judgment reversed; new trial ordered. . Frese v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 263 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 1, 68 L.Ed. 131; Davis v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147, 45 S.Ct. 33, 69 L.Ed. 212; Yadkin R. R. Co. v. [*774] Sigmon, 267 U.S. 577, 45 S.Ct. 230, 69 L.Ed. 796; Unadilla Valley Ry. Co. v. Caldine, 278 U.S. 139, 49 S.Ct. 91, 73 L.Ed. 224; Southern Ry. Co. v. Young-blood, 286 U.S. 313, 52 S.Ct. 518, 76 L.Ed. 1124. . S…
-
O'Neill v. Cunard White Star, 160 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1947)…837. Title 45 U.S.CA § 51. Michigan Central R. v. Vreeland, 227 U.S. 59, 70, 33 S.Ct. 192, 57 L.Ed. 417, Ann.Cas.l914C, 176; Frese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., 203 U.S. 1, 44 S.Ct. 1, 68 L.Ed. 131; Davis, Agent v. Kennedy, 266 U.S. 147, 45 S.Ct. 33, 69 L.Ed. 212; Mellon, Director General v. Goodyear, 277 U.S. 335, 48 S.Ct. 541, 72 L.Ed. 906. 2 Cir., 91 F. 2d 1001. 2 Cir., 132 F. 2d 414. 2 Cir., 151 F. 2d 132. 2 Cir., 60 F. 2d 927. Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 408. 2 Cir., 151 F. 2d 132,…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Layne & Bowler Corp. v. W. Well Works, Inc., 261 U.S. 387 (U.S. 1923)
- Furness v. Yang-Tsze Ins. Ass'n, 242 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1917)
- N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Goldberg, 250 U.S. 85 (U.S. 1919)