· 5/8/1916

Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co.

Citations

241 U.S. 190
36 S. Ct. 541
60 L. Ed. 948
1916 U.S. LEXIS 1771

Syllabus

The bill of lading of an interstate shipment issued by the initial carrier contained a stipulation that claims for failure to make delivery must be made in writing'to the carrier at point of delivery within a specified period otherwise carrier not liable; there was a delivery, but it was made contrary to. instructions, and the shipper telegraphed the terminal carrier that it made claim for entire value at invoice price. Held that: Under the Carmack Amendment the connecting carrier was not . relieved from liability, but the bill of lading required to be issued by the initial carrier upon an interstate shipment governs the entire transportation and fixes the obligations of all participating barriers to the extent that its terms are applicable and valid. 'The question of proper construction of the bill of lading of an interstate shipment is a Federal question. Multitudinous transactions of a carrier justify the requirement of written notice, of misdeliveries of merchandise and claims against it even with respect to its own operations. The Carmack Amendment casts upon the initial carrier responsibility with respect to the entire transportation and incoase of misdelivery by the terminal carrier the initial carrier is liable. A provision in an interstate bill of lading is to be construed the same as to the connecting or terminal carrier as it is to be construed as to the initial-carrier, as the obligations of the latter-are measured by the terms of the bill of lading. Where the bill of lading of an interstate shipment requires notice of claim for misdelivery, such notice must be given before action can be brought against the terminal carrier making the.- misde-livery complained of. The effect of such stipulation cannot be escaped by form of action; and if a suit cannot be maintained for damages against the delivering carrier without the required notice, it cannot be maintained for conversion. Parties to the

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that The Carmack Amendment embraces “all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty as to any part of the agreed transportation'.”
holding that the language of the Carmack Amendment is “comprehensive enough to embrace responsibility for all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty as to any part of the agreed transportation”
explaining that the Carmack Amendment covers “all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty as to any part of the agreed transportation”
explaining that the Carmack Amendment covers “all losses resulting from any failure to discharge a carrier’s duty as to any part of the agreed transportation”
stating that state law claims against carrier, based on carrier’s interstate transportation services, were preempted by the Carmack Amendment
finding that the Carmack Amendment preemption embraces any loss from a carrier’s failure to discharge their duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hughes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.