Randall v. Richmond & Danville Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Randall v. Richmond & Danville Railroad

13 S.E. 137, 108 N.C. 612

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 S.E. 137 (Randall v. Richmond & Danville Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Randall v. Richmond & Danville Railroad, 13 S.E. 137, 108 N.C. 612 (N.C. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

*613 Clark, J.:

.A common carrier can demand prepayment of freight from anyone and to any station. The Code, § 1963; Allen v. Railroad, 100 N. C., 397.

That the defendant made a general regulation that it would require prepayment on all freight to a flag station (at which there was no agent), was not only reasonable, but was a matter entirely within the defendant’s powers. A common carrier may require prepayment from any shipper, at its choice, though it may not require it from others. Allen v. Railroad, supra. It should appear, however, that the plaintiff, or his forwarding agent, the first company, had notice that prepayment was required. This the defendant was not improperly allowed to do, by showing, as it did, that all freight to this station was required to be prepaid, and further, by the plaintiff himself that he knew of such regulation. It was also in evidence that notice of it was given to the E. T., V. & G. Railroad, who were the agents of plaintiff for forwarding the freight beyond its own line.

A witness introduced for defendant testified that, the defendant did not accept the freight from the E. T., "V. & G. Railroad till February 28th, and that it was shipped the nest day. The two companies were not shown to be under the same management but were simply connecting roads. The defendant was not required to receive freight from the E. T., Y. & G. Railroad for shipment without prepayment of freight any more than from anyone else. It is in evidence, and not contradicted, that the defendant notified such,company that it required prepayment, and when it was satisfied in that regard that it immediately received and promptly shipped the freight.

If the E. T., V. & G. Railroad received prepayment of freight for shipment over both lines, and negligently failed to prepay the defendant as required by its regulations, and the plaintiff , has suffered damage by the consequent detention, he must look to the company who received his money *614 and with whom he contracted for the shipment. Manufacturing Co. v. Railroad Co., 106 N. C., 207.

The Court properly instructed the jury that there was n'o evidence that the defendant received the freight until February 28, and to find the issues in favor of the defendant.

Per curiam. No error.

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

*613 Clark, J.:

.A common carrier can demand prepayment of freight from anyone and to any station. The Code, § 1963; Allen v. Railroad, 100 N. C., 397.

That the defendant made a general regulation that it would require prepayment on all freight to a flag station (at which there was no agent), was not only reasonable, but was a matter entirely within the defendant’s powers. A common carrier may require prepayment from any shipper, at its choice, though it may not require it from others. Allen v. Railroad, supra. It should appear, however, that the plaintiff, or his forwarding agent, the first company, had notice that prepayment was required. This the defendant was not improperly allowed to do, by showing, as it did, that all freight to this station was required to be prepaid, and further, by the plaintiff himself that he knew of such regulation. It was also in evidence that notice of it was given to the E. T., V. & G. Railroad, who were the agents of plaintiff for forwarding the freight beyond its own line.

A witness introduced for defendant testified that, the defendant did not accept the freight from the E. T., "V. & G. Railroad till February 28th, and that it was shipped the nest day. The two companies were not shown to be under the same management but were simply connecting roads. The defendant was not required to receive freight from the E. T., Y. & G. Railroad for shipment without prepayment of freight any more than from anyone else. It is in evidence, and not contradicted, that the defendant notified such,company that it required prepayment, and when it was satisfied in that regard that it immediately received and promptly shipped the freight.

If the E. T., V. & G. Railroad received prepayment of freight for shipment over both lines, and negligently failed to prepay the defendant as required by its regulations, and the plaintiff , has suffered damage by the consequent detention, he must look to the company who received his money *614 and with whom he contracted for the shipment. Manufacturing Co. v. Railroad Co., 106 N. C., 207.

The Court properly instructed the jury that there was n'o evidence that the defendant received the freight until February 28, and to find the issues in favor of the defendant.

Per curiam. No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 S.E. 137, 108 N.C. 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-richmond-danville-railroad-nc-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack