Hines v. Cabaniss

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hines v. Cabaniss

86 So. 524, 204 Ala. 527, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 260

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 14, 1920

Docket8 Div. 277.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 So. 524 (Hines v. Cabaniss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hines v. Cabaniss, 86 So. 524, 204 Ala. 527, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 260 (Ala. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The action is for damages for nondelivery of plaintiff’s trunk, in transit from South Carolina to Alabama. The value of the trunk and contents is placed at $109, and plaintiff claims, under section 5517 of the Code, 1% times the amount of his actual damages, or $163.50.

The damages allowed by section 5517 in excess of actual damages are by way of a penalty upon the carrier for nonpayment of actual damages within 60 days after the plaintiff’s presentation to the earner of an itemized and verified claim therefor. The carriage of the trunk in this case being interstate commerce, damages in relation thereto are governed exclusively by the provisions of the federal “Act to Regulate Commerce,” especially that part thereof known as the Car-mack Amendment of Ju'ne 29, 1906. 34 Stat. 584, 595 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8604a, S604aa).

The specific question here involved was decided in Ch. & Car. R. R. Co. v. Varnville Co., 237 U. S. 597, 35 Sup. Ct. 715, 59 L. Ed. 1137, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 333, wherein it was held that' a South Carolina statute imposing a penalty upon the carrier as damages for nonpayment of claims within 40 days was not only an unlawful burden on interstate commerce, but w7as also in conflict with, the Car-mack Amendment, which prescribes and regulates the damages recoverable. See, also, M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 34 Sup. Ct. 790, 58 L. Ed. 1377, L. R. A. 1915E, 942, where many cases are reviewed. It follows that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by defendant, that the penalty in question is not recoverable in this case.

It appears that this penalty was included by the jury in the verdict, and entered into the judgment, which is infected with error only to that extent. If the plaintiff shall en *528 ter a remittitur in this court within 30 days for an amount equal to one-third of the judgment rendered, so as to purge it of this illegal constituent, the judgment will be corrected and affirmed at the cost of app>ellee. Otherwise, it will he reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded conditionally.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

SOMERVILLE, J.

The action is for damages for nondelivery of plaintiff’s trunk, in transit from South Carolina to Alabama. The value of the trunk and contents is placed at $109, and plaintiff claims, under section 5517 of the Code, 1% times the amount of his actual damages, or $163.50.

The damages allowed by section 5517 in excess of actual damages are by way of a penalty upon the carrier for nonpayment of actual damages within 60 days after the plaintiff’s presentation to the earner of an itemized and verified claim therefor. The carriage of the trunk in this case being interstate commerce, damages in relation thereto are governed exclusively by the provisions of the federal “Act to Regulate Commerce,” especially that part thereof known as the Car-mack Amendment of Ju'ne 29, 1906. 34 Stat. 584, 595 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8604a, S604aa).

The specific question here involved was decided in Ch. & Car. R. R. Co. v. Varnville Co., 237 U. S. 597, 35 Sup. Ct. 715, 59 L. Ed. 1137, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 333, wherein it was held that' a South Carolina statute imposing a penalty upon the carrier as damages for nonpayment of claims within 40 days was not only an unlawful burden on interstate commerce, but w7as also in conflict with, the Car-mack Amendment, which prescribes and regulates the damages recoverable. See, also, M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 234 U. S. 412, 34 Sup. Ct. 790, 58 L. Ed. 1377, L. R. A. 1915E, 942, where many cases are reviewed. It follows that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by defendant, that the penalty in question is not recoverable in this case.

It appears that this penalty was included by the jury in the verdict, and entered into the judgment, which is infected with error only to that extent. If the plaintiff shall en *528 ter a remittitur in this court within 30 days for an amount equal to one-third of the judgment rendered, so as to purge it of this illegal constituent, the judgment will be corrected and affirmed at the cost of app>ellee. Otherwise, it will he reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.

Reversed and remanded conditionally.

ANDERSON, C. J., and McCLELLAN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 So. 524, 204 Ala. 527, 1920 Ala. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-cabaniss-ala-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack