Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Adams Express Co. v. Croninger

Adams Express Co. v. Croninger

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 13, 1912; reargued October 23, 1912. ; January 6, 1913, Decided

No. 18.

Opinion

 [*499]   [**149]   [***317]  MR. JUSTICE LURTON, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The answer relies upon the act of Congress of June 29, 1906, being an act to amend the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, as the only regulation applicable to an interstate shipment; and avers that the limitation of value, declared in its bill of lading, was valid and obligatory under that act. This defense was denied. This constitutes the Federal question and gives this court jurisdiction.

Under the law of Kentucky this contract, limiting the plaintiff's recovery to the agreed or declared value, was invalid, and the shipper was [****15]  entitled to recover the actual value, "unless," as said in Adams Express Company v. Walker, 119 Kentucky, 121, 129, and affirmed in Southern Express Company v. Fox and Logan, 131 Kentucky, 257, "sufficient facts are shown, independently of the special contract, to avoid the contract for fraud or to create an estoppel at common law."

The question upon which the case must turn, is, whether the operation and effect of the contract for an interstate shipment, as shown by the receipt or bill of lading, is  [*500]  governed by the local law of the State, or by the acts of Congress regulating interstate commerce.

That the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations comprehends power to regulate contracts between the shipper and the carrier of an interstate shipment by defining the liability of the carrier for loss, delay, injury or damage to such property, needs neither argument nor citation of authority.

 [***318]  But it is equally well settled that until Congress has legislated upon the subject, the liability of such ] a carrier, exercising its calling within a particular State, although engaged in the business of interstate commerce,  [****16]  for loss or damage to such property, may be regulated by the law of the State. Such regulations would fall within that large class of regulations which it is competent for a State to make in the absence of legislation by Congress, growing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the  [**150]  State over such carriers and its duty and power to safeguard the general public against acts of misfeasance and nonfeasance committed within its limits, although interstate commerce may be indirectly affected: Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465; New York &c. Railroad v. New York, 165 U.S. 628; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Ry. v. Solan, 169 U.S. 133, 137; Richmond &c. Ry. v. Patterson Co., 169 U.S. 311; Cleveland &c. Ry. v. Illinois, 177 U.S. 514; Pennsylvania Railroad v. Hughes, 191 U.S. 477. In the Solan Case, cited above, it was said of such state legislation:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

226 U.S. 491 *; 33 S. Ct. 148 **; 57 L. Ed. 314 ***; 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2256 ****

ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY v. CRONINGER.

Prior History:  [****1]  ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KENTON COUNTY, STATE OF KENTUCKY.

THIS was an action in the Circuit Court of Kenton County, Kentucky, against the Express Company to recover the full market value of a small package containing a diamond ring which was delivered by the plaintiff below to the Express Company at its office in Cincinnati, Ohio, consigned to J. W. Clendenning at Augusta, Georgia. The package was never delivered.

The Express Company made defense by answer. The plaintiff demurred to the answer as not containing a defense, which demurrer was sustained. The company declined to further plead, whereupon the Circuit Court gave judgment for the sum of $137.52, being the full value of the ring and interest. A writ of error was sued out from this court to the Circuit Court of Kenton County, that being the highest court of the State in which a decision could be had.

The answer and accompanying exhibit were in substance as follows:

That the defendant was an express company engaged in interstate commerce within the provisions of the act of Congress of June 29, 1906; that in obedience to that act it had duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission schedules showing its [****2]  rates and charges from Cincinnati to Augusta, Georgia, which schedules showed that its rates and charges, when the value of the property to be carried was in excess of fifty dollars, were graduated reasonably, according to the value, and that the lawful rate upon the package of the plaintiff from Cincinnati to Augusta was twenty-five cents if the value was fifty dollars or less, and was fifty-five cents if its value was one hundred and twenty-five dollars.

It is averred that the plaintiff knew that the charges upon the package shipped were based upon the value of the shipment, and that it (the defendant) required that the value should be declared by the shipper, and that if he did not disclose and declare the value when he delivered the shipment to it at Cincinnati for transportation to Augusta, the rate charged would be based upon a valuation of fifty dollars. It is then alleged that the package so delivered was sealed and that defendant did not know the contents or value, and that if it had it would not have received it for carriage for less than the lawful published rate of fifty-five cents. The receipt or bill of lading issued shows no value, but contains a stipulation in these [****3]  words:

"In consideration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is regulated by the value thereof and is based upon a valuation of not exceeding fifty dollars unless a greater value is declared, the shipper agrees that the value of said property is not more than fifty dollars, unless a greater value is stated herein, and that the company shall not be liable in any event for more than the value so stated, nor for more than fifty dollars if no value is stated herein."

CORE TERMS

carrier, regulation, shipper, exempt, bill of lading, transportation, interstate commerce, interstate, common law, contracts, Commerce, carriage, common carrier, public policy, valuation, dollars, rates, shipment, interstate shipment, property value, agreed value, joint tariff, railroad, charges, diverse, freight, courts

Business & Corporate Compliance, Transportation Law, Carrier Duties & Liabilities, State & Local Regulation, Transportation Law, Interstate Commerce, General Overview, State Powers, Torts, Transportation Torts, Rail Transportation, Bills of Lading, Damages, Contracts Law, Defenses, Public Policy Violations