AMERICAN RAILWAY EXPRESS COMPANY
v.
DANIEL
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.
American Railway Express Company failed to deliver a parcel and admitted liability for fifty dollars, the value stated in the receipt, but was held liable for one hundred dollars by the state courts. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a carrier's filed rate schedules establishing the relationship between declared value and freight rates bind both parties, and that the sender is bound to know this relationship regardless of the carrier's knowledge of the sender's agent's ignorance of the true value of the goods.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit against the petitioning Express Company for the value of a parcel that was received by the Company for carriage but was not delivered. The Company admitted liability for fifty dollars but alleged that it could not be held for more, because the receipt that it gave fixed that sum as the value of the goods and a higher value would have required the payment of a higher rate. Under the ruling of the Court a verdict was found against the petitioner for a hundred dollars, interest and costs, subject to questions of law reserved, and judgment on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, without opinion, by an evenly divided Court.
The goods were delivered by an agent and, after conversation between him and the agent of the Express Company, the latter put fifty dollars into the receipt as the value, neither party having any clear knowledge, and the receipt later was handed to and bound the sender of the goods. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 514. The rate for carriage of property valued at more than fifty dollars was higher than that charged. The schedules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission were offered, to show the rates, but were excluded, and the judgment was affirmed seemingly on the ground that the sending .agent was not shown to have known that a lower valuation secured a lower rate, and that the carrier knew that the agent was ignorant of the true value of the goods. No argument is made for the respondent and it is plain that the judgment cannot be sustained. The carrier’s knowledge of the agent’s ignorance of the value was immaterial. It acted in good faith. The carrier’s schedules should have been admitted and bound both parties. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 652, 653. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 614. American Railway Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U. S. 584. The sender is bound to know the relation established by them between values and rates. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 360. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Brothers & Co., 256 U. S. 566.
Judgment reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Chatters, 279 U.S. 320 (U.S. 1929)…nterstate commerce under published tariffs and the attendant limitation of liability in the tariff became the lawful condition upon which the service was rendered, binding alike on the carrier and its patron, cf. American. Ry. Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U. S. 40; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Priester, 276 U. S. 252, 259; Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560, and was not subject to waiver. Cf. Davis v. Henderson, 266 U. S. 92; see Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry. v. Blish…
-
Se. Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co., 299 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1936)…ss of the amount permitted by its terms. New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Peninsula Exchange, supra, pp. 41, 42; Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 614; Southern Ry. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632, 638; American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U. S. 40, 42. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed. Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.…
-
Juliet M. D. Anton v. Greyhound van Lines, Inc., 591 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1978)…s out, that shippers are charged with notice of terms, conditions, and regulations contained in the tariff schedule pertaining to a carrier’s liability which in turn affect the rates charged the carriage of goods. American Ry. Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40, 46 S.Ct. 15, 70 L.Ed. 154 (1925); American Ry. Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U.S. 584, 43 S.Ct. 206, 67 L.Ed. 414 (1923). However, a carrier in order properly to limit its liability must do more than merely show that it maintained appropriate tari…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kan. City S. Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U.S. 639 (U.S. 1913)
- Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1923)
- W. Union Tel. Co. v. Esteve Bros. & Co., 256 U.S. 566 (U.S. 1921)
- S. Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1916)
- Great N. Ry. Co. v. O'Connor, 232 U.S. 508 (U.S. 1914)
- Calveston v. Woodbury, 254 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1920)