American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel

Supreme Court

American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel

269 U.S. 40, 46 S. Ct. 15, 70 L. Ed. 154, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 4

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 26, 1925

Docket53

StatusPublished

Cited by43 cases

This text of 269 U.S. 40 (American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40, 46 S. Ct. 15, 70 L. Ed. 154, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 4 (1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit against the petitioning Express Company for the value of a parcel that was received by the Company for carriage but was not delivered. The Company admitted liability for fifty dollars but alleged that it could not be held for more, because the receipt that it gave fixed that sum as the value of the goods and a higher value would have required the payment of a higher rate. Under the ruling of the Court a verdict was found against the petitioner for a hundred dollars, interest and costs, subject to questions of law reserved, and judgment on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, without opinion, by an evenly divided Court.

The goods were delivered by an agent and, after conversation between him and the agent of the Express Company, the latter put fifty dollars into the receipt as the value, neither party having any clear knowledge, and the receipt later was handed to and bound the sender of the goods. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 514. The rate for carriage of property valued at more than fifty dollars was higher than that charged. The schedules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission were offered, to show the rates, but were excluded, and the judgment was affirmed seemingly on the ground that the sending .agent was not shown to have known that a lower valuation secured a lower rate, and that the car *42 rier knew that the agent was ignorant of the true value of the goods. No argument is made for the respondent and it is plain that the judgment cannot be sustained. The carrier’s knowledge of the agent’s ignorance of the value was immaterial. It acted in good faith. The carrier’s schedules should have been admitted and bound both parties. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 652, 653. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 614. American Railway Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U. S. 584. The sender is bound to know the relation established by them between values and rates. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 360. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Brothers & Co., 256 U. S. 566.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit against the petitioning Express Company for the value of a parcel that was received by the Company for carriage but was not delivered. The Company admitted liability for fifty dollars but alleged that it could not be held for more, because the receipt that it gave fixed that sum as the value of the goods and a higher value would have required the payment of a higher rate. Under the ruling of the Court a verdict was found against the petitioner for a hundred dollars, interest and costs, subject to questions of law reserved, and judgment on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, without opinion, by an evenly divided Court.

The goods were delivered by an agent and, after conversation between him and the agent of the Express Company, the latter put fifty dollars into the receipt as the value, neither party having any clear knowledge, and the receipt later was handed to and bound the sender of the goods. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 514. The rate for carriage of property valued at more than fifty dollars was higher than that charged. The schedules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission were offered, to show the rates, but were excluded, and the judgment was affirmed seemingly on the ground that the sending .agent was not shown to have known that a lower valuation secured a lower rate, and that the car *42 rier knew that the agent was ignorant of the true value of the goods. No argument is made for the respondent and it is plain that the judgment cannot be sustained. The carrier’s knowledge of the agent’s ignorance of the value was immaterial. It acted in good faith. The carrier’s schedules should have been admitted and bound both parties. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 652, 653. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 614. American Railway Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U. S. 584. The sender is bound to know the relation established by them between values and rates. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 360. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Brothers & Co., 256 U. S. 566.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 U.S. 40, 46 S. Ct. 15, 70 L. Ed. 154, 1925 U.S. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-railway-express-co-v-daniel-scotus-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack