Erie Railroad v. Kirkendall

Supreme Court

Erie Railroad v. Kirkendall

266 U.S. 185, 45 S. Ct. 33, 69 L. Ed. 236, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2912

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 17, 1924

Docket51

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 U.S. 185 (Erie Railroad v. Kirkendall) 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

Erie Railroad v. Kirkendall, 266 U.S. 185, 45 S. Ct. 33, 69 L. Ed. 236, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2912 (1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent sued for the value of a lost package described by the bill of lading as “ 1 box bedding,” weighing 280 pounds, which actually contained “miscellaneous household articles, together with two quilts and two pair woolen blankets.” In defense the railroad insisted that he misrepresented the true character of the contents and thereby prevented it from obtaining a released valuation which, according to the rate paid and provisions of the published tariffs, would not have exceeded twenty-eight dollars.

The writ must be dismissed. The inducing petition failed to give adequate information concerning the record *186 and essential facts. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Assn., 242 U. S. 430; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, 261 U. S. 387; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 608. The confused state of the record renders it difficult to ascertain the facts; maybe impossible. The petition for certiorari seemed to represent that at time of shipment the consignor accepted a bill of lading misdescribing the contents of the package and accepted a rate based upon limited liability, as he must have known.

It appears, however, that the shipper correctly reported the contents to the railroad, that he was not asked concerning value and made no representations relative thereto, that no rate was quoted, and that the undisclosed charges were to be collected at destination. The bill of lading contained no statement of value or rate and no provision restricting the carrier’s liability to less than the actual worth. Section 8 provides — “ The owner or consignee shall pay the freight and all other lawful charges accruing on said property, and, if required, shall pay the same before delivery. If upon inspection it is ascertained that the articles shipped are not those described in this bill of lading, the freight charges must be paid upon the articles actually shipped.” New York Central R. R. Co. v. Goldberg, 250 U. S. 85, 87.

The case tendered by the petition is radically different from the one presented upon the argument.

Writ of certiorari dismissed.

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

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent sued for the value of a lost package described by the bill of lading as “ 1 box bedding,” weighing 280 pounds, which actually contained “miscellaneous household articles, together with two quilts and two pair woolen blankets.” In defense the railroad insisted that he misrepresented the true character of the contents and thereby prevented it from obtaining a released valuation which, according to the rate paid and provisions of the published tariffs, would not have exceeded twenty-eight dollars.

The writ must be dismissed. The inducing petition failed to give adequate information concerning the record *186 and essential facts. Furness, Withy & Co. v. Yang-Tsze Insurance Assn., 242 U. S. 430; Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, 261 U. S. 387; Southern Power Co. v. North Carolina Public Service Co., 263 U. S. 608. The confused state of the record renders it difficult to ascertain the facts; maybe impossible. The petition for certiorari seemed to represent that at time of shipment the consignor accepted a bill of lading misdescribing the contents of the package and accepted a rate based upon limited liability, as he must have known.

It appears, however, that the shipper correctly reported the contents to the railroad, that he was not asked concerning value and made no representations relative thereto, that no rate was quoted, and that the undisclosed charges were to be collected at destination. The bill of lading contained no statement of value or rate and no provision restricting the carrier’s liability to less than the actual worth. Section 8 provides — “ The owner or consignee shall pay the freight and all other lawful charges accruing on said property, and, if required, shall pay the same before delivery. If upon inspection it is ascertained that the articles shipped are not those described in this bill of lading, the freight charges must be paid upon the articles actually shipped.” New York Central R. R. Co. v. Goldberg, 250 U. S. 85, 87.

The case tendered by the petition is radically different from the one presented upon the argument.

Writ of certiorari dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 U.S. 185, 45 S. Ct. 33, 69 L. Ed. 236, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erie-railroad-v-kirkendall-scotus-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack