Western Transit Co. v. A. C. Leslie & Co.

Citations

• 242 U.S. 448
• 37 S. Ct. 133
• 61 L. Ed. 423
• 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2208

Syllabus

<p>Plaintiff consigned goods from Michigan to New York City over a “lake and rail” route constituted of defendant’s steamship line as far as Buffalo and the line of a railway' company thence onward. Plaintiff paid the freight, obtaining a reduced rate allowed in the</p> <p>' tariff for this route by agreeing in,the bill of lading to a maximum valuation and release of larger damages. A separate tariff, filed‘by defendant pursuant to § 6 of the Act to Regulate Commerce, entitled plaintiff to have the goods stored for a time at Buffalo without extra charge before forwarding to New York and to divert them to some other destination upon readjustment of-rates. By direction of plaintiff, defendant was holding the goods stored under this arrangement when a part was stolen.</p> <p>Held (1) That defendant was liable as carrier and not as warehouseman.</p> <p>(2) That the damages could not exceed the maximum value agreed in the bill of lading and upon-which the freight rate was based.</p> <p>(3) That a letter written-by defendant to plaintiff while the goods were so stored, acknowledging their custody, and Stating that they would be held subject to a circular enclosed with the letter and which but described the terms of the storage as they were stated in the separate tariff, did not operate to create a contract of warehousing independent of the contract of carriage.</p> <p>Every shipper is charged with notice of-terms of the interstate tariffs governing his shipments.</p> <p>A shipper by his bill of lading valued several tons of goods at not to exceed $100 per ton, and agreed that this as a maximum should govern the computation of any loss or damage for which the carrier might become liable. Held, that the maximum liability of the carrier for the loss of a part was not the total valuation so fixed, but the value, at the ratio of $100 per ton, of the part lost.</p>