McCoy v. Erie & Western Transportation Co.

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiffs brought their action for the recovery of damages for alleged neglect of the defendants, in the transportation of a quantity of corn, contracted to be moved from Chicago to Baltimore. In the trial before the Superior Court of Baltimore City, two bills of exception were taken hy the plaintiffs. In the first, exception was taken to the admission of certain receipts offered in evidence, without the qualification proposed by the plaintiffs — to the refusal of the plaintiffs’ fourth, fifth and sixth prayers, and the granting of defendant’s third prayer.

In the second, exception was taken to the refusal of the Court to permit plaintiffs’ counsel to argue the case before the jury, the Court determining there was not sufficient evidence to authorize a verdict for the plaintiffs. The receipt for the transportation of the corn, or bill of lading, as it is called, constituted the contract between the ⁵⁰⁷ parties, and upon its true construction their rights must bo determined in the action. It contains a number of stipulations and conditions, and is mostly a printed form. Its date — the rates of transportation for the corn — order of Eumsey & Co., agents of the plaintiffs at Chicago — names of the plaintiffs’ consignees at Baltimore, and the number of bushels of corn being in manuscript.

The printed part contains the language, “the following packages, (contents unknown,) in apparent good condition.” Afterwards, under the word “articles” in print, the number of bushels of corn is stated in writing. One of its printed conditions provides, “ that the defendants are not to be held accountable for any damage or deficiency in packages, after the same shall have been receipted for in good order by consignees, or their agent at the point of delivery.” The defendants delivered the corn to certain agents of the plaintiffs, who signed receipts of the following tenor : “Beceived from the Northern Central Eailway Company, the following articles in good order” — then follow the number of bushels of corn — other receipts add the word “condition.” In reference to the effect of these receipts under the contract and its meaning in relation thereto, the discussion of their respective counsel was mainly directed. The defendants contending, that the corn was to be understood as embraced under the language, “ the following packages, (contents unknown,) in apparent good condition ; ” and that the condition as to claim “ for damage or deficiency in packages, after receipted for in good order by consignees or their agents,” operated to preclude the plaintiffs from recovery. Such a construction the plaintiffs denied, insisting that was not the meaning of the contract, but that the term ⁵⁰⁸ “packages ” had reference to “ goods unknown,” and did not apply to the article of “ corn ” in question.

Construing the entire instrument with its printed and written portions, as constituting the contract between the parties, the meaning as to any particular condition or stipulation must he ascertained. However terms may he understood in their ordinary sense, if the parties have attached other or unusual or arbitrary meaning to them, to he derived from their fair interpretation in the contract, they have the right so to employ them. But to accomplish such purpose, and to vary the common understanding, the meaning ought to he plain and free from reasonable doubt. This contract, using the words “the following packages, (contents unknown,) in apparent good condition,” might and probably did mean to include articles referred to in the subsequent condition, under the designation of “packages ; ” hut it did not import, that all articles, goods, ■merchandise and property, of whatever description, were to he classed and defined as “packages, (contents unknown,) in apparent good