Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Carmack
Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Carmack
Opinion of the Court
Carmack sued appellant to recover the value of five horses shipped from Alpine, Tex., to Little Rock, Ark.; the animals having died from injuries negligently inflicted while being transported over appellant’s line of railroad from Alpine to San Antonio, Tex. The bill of lading issued by appellant discloses that the animals were waybilled from Alpine- to Little Rock. It was stipulated therein that the railway company should transport the animals from I Alpine to San Antonio, the end of the lino of road operated by appellant, on the route over which the same were waybilled, there to be delivered to the consignee or transferred to the railway company over which they were waybilled for further transportation.
The bill of lading provided, in case of loss of any of the animals from any cause for which the company would be liable, that the value thereof should be its actual cash value at the time and place of shipment, not to exceed $100 per head. In view of this provision of the contract, which was specially pleaded, it was error to admit the testimony indicated. If, in an interstate shipment of Xiroperty, the value of same is fixed by agreement between the parties as of its market value at the time and place of shipment, this" valuation must govern in assessing the damages at a trial of the issue.
This is well settled in view of the act of Congress approved June 29, 1906, commonly known as the Carmack Amendment, and the decisions construing same. Railway Co. v. Sparks, 162 S. W. 943; Railway Co. v. Langbehn, 158 S. W. 244; Railway Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 33 Sup. Ct. 391, 57 L. Ed. 683; Railway Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657, 33 Sup. Ct. 397, 57 L. Ed. 690; Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 491, 57 L. Ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257; Railway Co. v. Latta, 226 U. S. 519, 33 Sup. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 328.; Railway Co. v. Miller, 226 U. S. 513, 33 Sup. Ct. 155, 57 L. Ed. 323.
The assignment indicated is sustained, as well as the second, which asserts that there was no proper evidence before the court of plaintiff’s damage upon which to base a judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
<@=>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
Reference
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published