Peninsula Produce Exchange v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk Railroad

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is a suit against the initial carrier under the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act (34 Stat. at L. 584, Ch. 3591; U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288) for partial loss of the market value of a carload of strawberries shipped by the plaintiff over the lines of the defendant and connecting.railroads and alleged not to have been forwarded and delivered with reasonable dispatch. In another suit between the same parties decided on appeal at the present term of this Court (ante, page 215), it was held that a property loss of the character here described is subject to the liability imposed by the Eederal Statute.

The principal question in the present case arises upon a provision in the bill of lading under which the berries were shipped, that: “Claims for loss, damage or delay must he made in writing to the carrier at the point of delivery or at the point of origin within four months after delivery of the property, or in case of failure to make delivery, l.hen within four months after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed. Unless claims are so made the carrier shall not be liable.” ²³³ According to the proof in the record the shipment was made ón May 26th, 1910, and the claim for loss was prepared in the office of the plaintiff company on July 2nd following, but there is no evidence as to when it was transmitted to the defendant. The officer who made up the claim, and who was the only witness who testified on this subject, stated that it was sent to the Traffic Manager of the defendant corporation, but that he had no recollection as to when it was forwarded. After the claim had been investigated by the defendant it was returned to the plaintiff in a letter dated January 4th, 1911, written by the Traffic Manager, denying liability on the ground that the delivery of the berries was found to have been made in due time.

At the close of the case the trial Court granted an instruction withdrawing the issue from the jury on the theory that the failure to prove the presentation of the claim within the time prescribed by the bill of lading was a bar to recovery. This action was taken in connection with the refusal of a prayer offered by the plaintiff to the effect that even though thet jury might not find’from the evidence that the plaintiff gave the required notice within four months after delivery of the shipment, yet if the notice was actually given and payment of the alleged loss was declined on the ground stated in the letter from the Traffic Manager, the ease admitted of a finding that the defendant had waived the limitation as to the time for the giving of the notice. In” actions of this nature, where the initial carrier is subjected to liability for defaults which may have occurred on connecting lines, and which may not be due to the defendant’s own acts or omissions, the stipulation for the filing of a claim of loss within a reasonable stated period is of obvious value and importance to the carrier sought to be charged. In the case of Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U. S. 657 , it was held that a provision in a bill of lading for an interstate shipment that suit against the carrier for damage to the property must be brought within ninety days after the loss, was not unreasonable or forbidden by the Carmack ²³⁴ Amendment.

A stipulation against the liability of an express company for a loss unless claim was made within ninety days after it occurred was sustained as valid in Southern Exp. Co. v. Caldwell, 21 Wall. 264 . The opinion by Mr. Justice Lurton in the Harriman case, supra, states that “Such limitations in bills of lading are