American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel
American Railway Express Company v. Daniel
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 39 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court3
- U.S. Courts of Appeals12
- Federal District Courts8
- State Highest Courts8
- State Appellate Courts6
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Atwood v. U W Freight Line, Inc.
- Quasar Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
- Feinberg v. Railway Express Agency
- Hughes Aircraft Company National Union Fire Insurance Company v. North American Van Lines, Inc., and Does 1-100, Inclusive
- Juliet M. D. Anton v. Greyhound Van Lines, Inc.
- Caten v. Salt City Movers & Storage Co.
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.