MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.
v.
REYNOLDS-DAVIS GROCERY CO.

U.S. | 1925-05-25
No. 329
268 U.S. 366 Supreme Court of the United States (1925) Caution
Also reported at: 69 L. Ed. 1000 · 45 S. Ct. 516 · 1925 U.S. LEXIS 796 · SCDB 1924-216
Cited by 33 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

A railroad company that shipped sugar via a through bill of lading employed another carrier to perform the final switching and delivery of the goods within a city, but the switching carrier was not named in the bill of lading and received no portion of the joint through rate. The Supreme Court held that the hiring railroad remained the delivering carrier and was liable for loss occurring during the switching operation, rejecting the argument that it could avoid liability by relying on a contractual provision exempting connecting carriers from responsibility for damage not occurring on their own lines.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Brandeis

Mr. Justice Brandeis delivered the opinion of the Court.

This action was brought in a state court of Arkansas by Reynolds-Davis Grocery Company against the Missouri Pacific Railroad to recover for the loss of part of a carload of sugar shipped from Raceland, Louisiana, to Fort Smith, Arkansas, on a through bill of lading. The loss occurred within the city of Fort Smith while the car was in the possession of the jSaint Louis-San Francisco Railroad. This carrier had been employed by the Missouri Pacific to switch the car from a point on its lines within the city to the consignee’s warehouse, which lay within the city on the lines of the switching carrier. The Missouri Pacific, relying upon Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co. v. McGinn, 258 U. S. 409, requested the trial court to rule that, as the bill of lading provided that no connecting carrier should be liable for any damage which did not occur on its own lines, and delivery at the consignee’s warehouse was part of an interstate shipment, the defendant wás not liable, because it was neither the initial nor the delivering carrier. The court refused to rule as requested; the jury found for the plaintiff; and the judgment entered -on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. 161 Ark. 579. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 265 U. S. 577.

The joint through rate covered delivery at the warehouse of the consignee. The bill of lading named Morgan’s. Louisiana & Texas Railroad and Steamship Company as the initial carrier and the route designated therein named the Missouri Pacific as the last of the connecting carriers. Its lines enter Fort Smith but do not extend to the consignee’s warehouse. It employed the Saint Louis-San Francisco to perform the necessary-switching service. And it paid therefor $6.30, the charge fixed by the tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The switching carrier was not named in the bill of lading and did not receive any part of the joint through rate. It was simply the agent of the Missouri Pacific for the purpose of delivery. The Missouri Pacific was the delivering carrier and is liable as such.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (15 total)

  • Adams v. Mills, 286 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1932)
    …mmon carrier. It did not follow from such status that it could not act as an agent of the line-haul carriers, nor that it was entitled to collect a part of its charges from the shippers. Compare Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Co., 268 U. S. 366; Union Stockyards Co. v. United States, 169 Fed. 404, 406. Fifth. Certain additional grounds of defense, not considered by either of the courts below, are pressed here. The Director General urges that the terms of Congressional consent do not permi…
  • Galveston Wharf Co. v. Galveston, 285 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1932)
    …within any of the exceptions stated in the bill. The Wharf Company was not entitled to escape this liability upon the ground that it was acting as the agent of the Railway Company. The case of Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Reynolds-Davis Grocery Co., 268 U. S. 366, upon which the petitioners rely, is not in point. There, the Missouri Pacific, the delivering carrier named in the bill of lading, had employed the St. Louis-San Francisco to perform a switching service in making the required delivery at'the place…
    1 / 2
  • United States v. Grimes, 426 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1970)
    …2, 1968, the indictment was filed. The prior dismissal of the complaint by the United States Commissioner, however, did not bar the subsequent indictment and conviction on the same charges. See United States ex rel. Rutz v. Levy, 1925, 268 U.S. 390, 45 S.Ct. 516, 69 L.Ed. 1010; Draper v. Rhay, D.C.E.D.Wash. 1964, 242 F.Supp. 829, affirmed 9th Cir. 1966, 358 F. 2d 304, cert. denied 384 U.S. 993, 86 S.Ct. 1901, 16 L.Ed.2d 1009. Appellant Grimes has contended that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Th…

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