Colfax Mountain Fruit Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.

GAROTJTTE, J. This is an action to recover damages. The ease was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, and judgment went for plaintiff. This appeal is prosecuted from such judgment.

The important question presented here for consideration is: Does the judgment follpw the findings of fact? And the determination of that question is dependent upon the construction to be given a certain contract entered into between the parties to the action. This contract was in the form of a shipping order, made out by plaintiff, and the parts thereof material for our consideration are as follows:

“Shipping Order, Southern Pacific Company.

“Colfax Station, October 24, 1890.

“Delivered this day by the undersigned to the Southern Pacific Company the property herein described, in apparent good order, except as noted, to be forwarded with as reasonable dispatch as its general business will permit, to Ogden * Station, and there delivered in like good order, .... on payment of charges, subject to the following conditions and agreements indorsed hereon:

“Consignee, Marks, and Destination, Sgobel & Day, New York.”

[650](Here follows a description of the property, consisting of fresh fruit.) “Care C. & N. W., via Erie Dispatch, New York. Passenger train service, U. P. 32,009. Agent Southern Pacific Company will please forward, subject to conditions and agreements indorsed hereon.

“(Signed) C. M. F. CO., Shippers.

“(*) When freight is destined off or beyond the line of Southern Pacific Company agents will be careful to note that the name here inserted is the station at which freight leaves the road.”

This printed contract, at the time of being signed and delivered by plaintiff to defendant, had indorsed upon the back thereof, among other printed conditions, the following: “That the company agrees to forward the property to the place of destination named; but its responsibility as a common carrier is to cease at the station where the freight leaves this road, when the property is to be delivered to connecting roads or carriers.” It seems that the characters “U. P. 32,009” meant Union Pacific Car No. 32,009.

Defendant transported the car in question by passenger train over its road to Ogden, and there delivered it to the Union P'aeifie Kailway Company, the next connecting cairier, with a request that the last-named company “and its connection between Ogden and New York city should, until the arrival of said car at final destination, accord to it passenger train service.” After delivery to fhe Union Pacific Company—but on what line does not appear— delay occurred in the transmission of the car, so that it was three dajs overdue on arrival at New York, and, in consequence, the fruit suffered decay, and was sold at a loss to plaintiff. This loss forms the basis of the judgment rendered.