Henry Oppenheimer & Co. v. United States Express Co.

Citations

• 69 Ill. 62

Syllabus

<p>1. Common carrier—restriction of liability. An express company has the right to demand from a consignor such information as will enable it to decide on the proper compensation to charge for the risk, and the degree of care to bestow in discharging its trust; and a limitation of its liability not to exceed §50, unless the value of the goods forwarded is truly stated, if brought to the knowledge of the consignor, is reasonable and consistent with public policy.</p> <p>■ 2. A distinction exists between the effect of those notices by a carrier by which it is sought to discharge him from duties which the law has annexed to his employment, and those designed simply to insure good faith and fair dealing on the part of his employer. In the former, notice without assent to the attempted restriction, is ineffectual, while in the latter, actual notice alone will be sufficient.</p> <p>3. Same—released by fraudulent concealment. Where a party forwarded jewelry worth §3800, in a box, by express, taking a receipt which disclosed on its face that the company should not be held liable for any loss or damage of any box, package or thing, for over §50, unless the just and true value thereof was therein stated, and failed to state the value, and, in consequence thereof, was charged a less premium than otherwise would have been required, it was held, that, independent of the qualifying words in the receipt, the court would be inclined to exempt the company from liability, on the ground of want of good faith in not disclosing the value of the goods.</p> <p>4. Same-1-restrictions not construed to exempt from ca/rrier's own negligence. The established legal construction of conditions in the contracts of carriers exempting them from liability is, not to treat them as providing against losses or injuries occasioned by actual negligence on their part.</p> <p>5. Same—waiter of restrictions in contract. The fact that an express company has settled for other losses without insisting on the re