Bertonneau v. Southern Pacific Co.
Before: James
Synopsis
Action Against Common Carrier—Shipment prom Spokane to Pasadena—Articles Specified in Civil Code—Notice—Value—Support op Findings—Question op Liability.—In an action against a railroad company doing business as a common carrier in this and other states upon an alleged contract of shipment from Spokane, Washington, to Pasadena, in this state, to recover the value of the articles shipped in the sum of $1,000, for nondelivery to the person designated, where defendant pleaded that the articles shipped were those designated in section 2200 of the Civil Code, limiting liability to such articles shipped in California to $50 for want of notice of their contents, it is held that though a finding that defendant had notice of their contents is against the evidence, yet a finding that it had notice that their value was fixed at $1,000 is supported by the evidence, and that the ultimate question of liability depends upon the law of the place of contract.
Id.—Admission as to Place of Contract—Liability Under Civil Code Inapplicable.—Where it is admitted by the pleadings that the contract of shipment by the defendant was made at Spokane, in the state of Washington, for one continuous shipment therefrom to Pasadena in this state, and it is conceded that the law of the state of Washington contains no such statute as that of California, and does not limit the common-law liability of the common carrier as •to contracts entered into in that state, the law of the state of Washington controls the contract of carriage made therein for shipment of goods therefrom to the point of destination in this state, and the provisions limiting any liability under section 2200 of the Civil Code have no application to the facts of such a case.
Id.—General Rule as to Law of Place—Performance.—The general rule affecting the determination of the liabilities of parties to a contract requires that the law of the place of contract shall govern, unless it is affirmatively made to appear that the parties, at the time of making it, clearly had some other law in view; and where it appears that the service of transportation agreed to be performed by the defendant was to commence in Spokane and to continue until the goods had been delivered at Pasadena, it cannot be said that performance shall be deemed only to have been made at the place where delivery was contracted for.
Ib.—Carrier’s Contract not Varying With Part Performance in Other States—Comity.—The carrier’s contract, made in one state, does not vary with each jurisdiction in which it may be partly performed, since the service to be rendered thereunder is single, and whatever is done in intermediate states is a part of the single act of transportation from the place of departure to the place of destination, in performance of an obligation assumed and undertaken in one state, and which is indivisible. The obligations arising out of such contract can only be' created by the laws of one state, and force and effect should be given by sibter states, on the ground of comity, to the foreign facts thus created, even though the same rights would not have been created by the law of the forum.
JAMES, J.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $1,000, alleged to be the reasonable value of certain goods, wares and merchandise which had been committed to the custody of defendant as a common carrier for transportation from the city of Spokane, Washington, to Pasadena, California. Judgment was in favor of plaintiff in accordance with the prayer of his complaint, from which judgment defendant has appealed. The appeal is to be considered upon the judgment-roll, together with a bill of exceptions. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the court, and the failure of the trial court to find upon certain affirmative allegations contained in defendant’s answer, are the only questions presented for review.
The plaintiff in his complaint alleged that the goods, wares and merchandise were shipped from Spokane, Washington, on the twenty-ninth day of January, 1908, over the railway line of the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company and the railway line of the defendant, and that the plaintiff caused the freight to be prepaid upon said merchandise, and “that the defendant then and there agreed to deliver the said goods, wares and merchandise safely to A. Bertonneau in the city of Pasadena, California.” In allegations following these, it was set out that the merchandise was shipped without any contract being made limiting the amount of damages to be paid in case the goods were lost or destroyed, and that the freight charges were fixed in accordance with this contract and were prepaid at the time of shipment. None of these allegations of fact were denied, but the defendant by its answer did deny the
[442]
further allegations of plaintiff’s complaint as to the loss of the goods and the amount of damage, and then in the answer the following affirmative allegation appeared: “Defendant, according to its information and belief, alleges that the goods mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint were all contained in one package and consisted of gold, silver, platinum, precious stones, imitations thereof, pictures, glass, chinaware, statuary, silk, laces and plated ware, and that at the time of the receipt thereof this defendant had no notice of the nature of said freight, and no notice was given to this defendant or to the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company, or to any of the agents, servants or employees of any of the carriers of said goods as to the nature of said freight.’.’ We call attention here to the condition of the pleadings by which it was admitted on the part of defendant that by the contract of shipment it agreed to transport the goods of plaintiff from the city of Spokane to the city of Pasadena. This admission results from the failure of defendant by its answer to deny any of the allegations of the complaint as to the making of the contract for carriage. The court made its findings as to the character of the goods shipped only in general terms, referring to them as goods, wares, merchandise and household goods, although the evidence showed that they were goods of the character and kind described by defendant in its answer. By finding 6, however, it was determined that at the time of making the shipment defendant and its agents were informed of the class, kind and nature of the goods contained in the package shipped; and in another finding it was stated that at the time of shipment it was made known to defendant, through the agents of the Oregon Railway and Navigation Company, that the value of the merchandise was more than $1,000. Defendant claims the benefit of the provisions of-section 2200 of the Civil Code of California, under which, if the allegations contained in paragraph VI of defendant’s answer are true as to the facts, plaintiff was not entitled to recover more than $50 for the loss of his merchandise. The provisions of the section referred to are as follows: “A common carrier of gold, silver, platina, or precious stones, or of imitation thereof, in a manufactured or unmanufactured state; of timepieces of any description; of negotiable paper or other valuable writing; of pictures, glass, or chinaware; of
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)