Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Harriman

Citations

• 227 U.S. 657
• 33 S. Ct. 397
• 57 L. Ed. 690
• 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2341

Syllabus

<p>Adams Express Co. v. Croninqer, 226 U. S. 491, and Kansas City Southern Ry. v. Carl, ante, p. 639, followed to effect that the shipper who values his goods for the purpose of obtaining the lower of two duly published rates, based on valuation, is estopped from recovering a greater amount than his own valuation; and that the Car-mack Amendment to the Hepburn Act of 1906 expresses the policy of Congress on this subject and supersedes: all state legislation thereon.</p> <p>It is not unreasonable, and in fact is the method approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, in graduating freight according to</p> <p>' value, to divide the particular subject of transportation into two classes — those above and those below a fixed amount; and the establishment of two cattle rates, one based on a maximum-fixed value and .the other on the actual value, is not a violation of the Carmack Amendment of the Hepburn Act.</p> <p>The Carmack Amendment has. withdrawn the determination of validity of all stipulations in interstate shipping contracts from state law and legislation. Under that amendment the validity of a provision that suit must be brought within a specified period is a Federal question to be settled by the general common law.</p> <p>The liability imposed by the Carmack Amendment is that, of the common law and it may bejimited or qualified by a special'contract With the shipper limiting it in a just and reasonable manner except exemption from loss or responsibility due' to negligence; and so held. as to a stipulation that suit be brought within ninety days from the happening of the loss.</p> <p>Limitation of the time within which to bring actions is a usual and reasonable provision and there is nothing in the policy of the Car-mack Amendment that is violated thereby.</p>