Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

16, at $1.92 per hundredweight, as carried in Trans-Continental E. B. Tariff 3-J. I. C. C. No. 954, page 82, group A, making the total through gross earnings on the shipment $384, which is in accordance with the carrier's bill attached.

"3. The Auditor for the War Department has been making suspensions against this office on shipments of a similar character on the basis of class B, plus 10 per cent, citing as his authority item 20, page 66, Trans-Continental E. B. Tariff No. 3-J. I. C. C. No. 954, and R. 16, (D) & (E) on page 71 of the same tariff.

"4. In this connection attention is invited to I. C. C. Report No. 933, entitled, 'In the matter of released rates,' decided May 14, 1908, wherein is defined carrier's limited liability and unlimited liability, and upon which rates are conditioned.

"5. The term 'carrier's risk,' as used by the Quartermaster Corps on Bs. L., covering shipments of household goods, is now and has been understood between the Quartermaster Corps and the common carriers to mean that the property tendered for transportation is valued in excess of $10 per 100 pounds, in case of loss or damage, and is valid the same as would be the certificate or agreed valuation required by the carrier from commercial shippers of household goods valued at under or over $10 per 100 pounds in the case of loss or damage, and in accordance with which the rate of freight is fixed.

"6. Army Regulations authorizes the shipment of household goods at Carrier's risk,' or in other words, at the higher valuation rate, and to apply as has been done by the Auditor for the War Department, the lower valuation rate not in excess of $10 per 100 pounds in case of loss or damage, would deprive the person concerned of the benefit of the real value of his goods if lost or damaged and worth over $10 per 100 pounds, and restrict his recovery to only $10 per 100 pounds in case of loss or damage caused by the carrier's negligence or other misconduct, and the 10 per cent additional applied by the Auditor for the War Department would, in the event of loss or damage caused beyond the carrier's control, make the carrier also liable to the owner of such goods lost or damaged on that account to the value not to exceed $10 per 100 pounds, which, in other words, is insuring against the acts of God or the public enemy which is not authorized in Army Regulations.

"7. A decision is therefore requested as to the proper basis of settlement and the amount to be paid the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. on the shipment in question."

The shipment under consideration is subject to the rates named in Trans-Continental Freight Bureau Eastbound Tariff No. 3-J. (I. C. C. No. 954), governed by western classification, No. 51.

The western classification (No. 51) provides for a carload rate on household goods (minimum 20,000 pounds)

"When the value of each article of which is declared by shipper not to exceed $10 per 100 pounds (or the proportionate amount thereof, if weight is less than 100 pounds), and so stated on bill of lading. Class B.

"When the value of which is declared by shipper to exceed $10 per 100 pounds or value not stated. Class A."

Less than carload shipments are rated as first class and one and one-half times first class, respectively.

The tariff referred to (I. C. C., 954) names a rate from San Francisco, Cal., to Washington, D. C., class A, $1.92, and class B, $1.52 per 100 pounds.

The said tariff also provides, under “Exceptions to western classification governing tariffs "

"Household goods, N. O. S., stores, etc., also personal effects, the value of each article of which is declared by shipper not to exceed $10 per 100 pounds (or the proportionate amount thereof if weight is less than 100 pounds) and so stated on bill of lading, charges must be prepaid or guaranteed, minimum carload weight 20,000 pounds (see notes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, below), class B.

[blocks in formation]

"NOTE 5.-Household goods, except as above provided for, will be subject to provisions of current western classification."

Both the tariff and the classification referred to provide that— 1. The rates specified are for shipments subject to the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading.

2. Property carried not subject to said conditions will be charged 10 per cent higher. Property so carried will be at the carrier's liability, limited only as provided by common law and by the Federal and State statutes applicable thereto.

The weight of the shipment under consideration was 9,014 pounds. As the gross charge there for at the less-than-carload rate exceeds the charge for a minimum carload, the carload rate is to be applied as the maximum charge therefor.

In accordance with the aforesaid tariff and classification by which the rate applicable for the shipment is to be determined, the rate to be paid for the transportation of a minimum carload of household goods, when shipped on or subject to the conditions of the carrier's "Uniform bill of lading," will be class B rate if valuation is limited to $10 per 100 pounds, and class A rate when the valuation is not so limited. If such a shipment is not subject to the conditions of the carrier's “Uniform bill of lading," 10 per cent is added to the said class B or class A rates as the valuation is limited or not limited.

The Government bill of lading, on which this shipment was made, expressly provided—

*

*

"For railway transportation this bill of lading is subject to all the conditions of the uniform or standard bills of lading except as otherwise specifically provided herein."

Even before the Government form of bill of lading contained the said provision it was held by long usage acquiesced in by the railroads and the accounting officers and administrative officers of the Government that the Government shipments on its form of bill of

lading were subject to the conditions and rates applicable for shipments made in accordance with the carrier's bill of lading.

In the case of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. The United States in the Court of Claims, No. 30030, the contention was made for an increased rate on Government shipments because not made on or subject to the conditions of the carrier's bill of lading. The Government contended that

"It has been the practice for many years (more than 20) for Government shipments to be made on the Government form of bill of lading, which has been accepted by the railroad companies, and accounts therefor have been settled on the same basis as though the carrier's bill of lading had been used.

"It has not been the practice during this time for the railroads to demand or the Government to pay the increase which was provided for shipments not made subject to the conditions of the carrier's bill of lading, though Government bills of lading have not mentioned that the shipments were subject to such conditions. *

*

"The Government bill of lading having been accepted and settlement for transportation having been made therefor for many years on the same basis as the carrier's bill of lading, it must be regarded as established that shipments on Government bills of lading are subject to the same rates as if carrier's bill of lading was used.

The case was decided May 1, 1911 (46 C. Cls., 692), and affirmed March 4, 1912. Though no written decision was given, either originally or on rehearing, the application for increased rates was denied, thus sustaining the Government contention that the Government bill of lading was the equivalent of the carrier's bill of lading.

Government shipments therefore, in accordance with long-established usage and with the later express stipulation, are considered as subject to the conditions of the carrier's uniform or standard bill of lading and as governed by the rates applicable thereto.

Consequently the 10 per cent increase provided for shipments not subject to the conditions of the "Uniform bill of lading" has no application on Government business.

The bill of lading under consideration, as one of the printed conditions thereon, specifies that

6

"The shipment is at 'owner's risk' or released rates where the tariff provides lower rates on that account, and at company's risk' where the tariff makes no such provision."

This provision by long usage has been held to entitle the Government to the lowest rate available, based on the released or limited valuation of the shipment, and establishes the carrier's liability in case of loss or damage thereto. But when the said lower rate and limited valuation was not to be applied it has been customary to indorse on the bill of lading "Carrier's risk" (or C. R.), which has been regarded as indicating merely that the shipment was made without limitation of value but at the full valuation and at the rate properly applicable therefor.

In the Louisville & Nashville Railroad case, referred to supra, the aforesaid usage was fully sustained on Government shipments, though not made in accordance with the requirements usually demanded of other shippers.

The court in that case in denying the claimant's contention sustained the long-established usage that obtained in the settlement of the accounts for transportation, which conclusively establishes

1. That the Government bill of lading is to be regarded as the equivalent of the railroad's "standard" or "uniform" bill of lading, and Government shipments are subject to conditions and rates as though shipped on said carrier's bills of lading.

2. That the term "Carrier's risk," when used on the Government bill of lading, merely indicates that where a higher rate is charged for transportation on account of a higher valuation assumed by the carrier, the Government pays the higher rate and the carrier assumes the greater liability accordingly, but not a different liability by the carrier or a different rate to be paid for the service than in accordance with the carrier's standard or uniform bill of lading.

In this connection attention is invited to my decision of May 31, 1913 (19 Comp. Dec., 770), which very fully sets forth the usage as to Government bills of lading.

Attention is also invited to a paragraph near the end of said decision, as follows:

"It would appear to be good policy on the part of the administrative officers of the Government to clearly indicate on the bill of lading the valuation at which the shipment is made wherever rates are dependent upon valuation, so as to conform to tariff requirements and satisfy the carrier in definitely fixing the rate applicable for the shipment and the liability of the carrier."

Had the bill of lading now under consideration stipulated the valuation at which the shipment was made instead of the term "Carrier's risk," the contract of shipment would have been clear without the necessity of resorting to usage for interpretation.

It appears, however, that the War Department, per paragraph 1136 of the Army Regulations of 1913, has provided that—

"Bills of lading covering shipments of baggage will in all cases carry notation Unlimited valuation' unless the owner files written authority with the shipping quartermaster to ship his entire baggage Released.' In such cases bills of lading must carry the notation 'Valuation $10 per 100 pounds.'

The enforcement of this regulation is deemed of importance in avoiding such a question as is here presented.

The question may arise as to the meaning of the term "Carrier's risk" apart from the meaning thus acquired by long-standing usage on the part of Government shipments.

Section 20 of the interstate commerce act, as amended by the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat., 595), provided:

"That any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company receiving property for transportation from a point in one State to a point in another State shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liability hereby imposed."

The Interstate Commerce Commissison, in Opinion No. 933, decided, May 14, 1908, that

"1. If a rate is conditioned upon the shipper's assuming the risk of loss due to causes beyond the carrier's control, the condition is valid.

"2. If a rate is conditioned upon the shipper's assuming the entire risk of loss, the condition is void as against loss due to the carrier's negligence or other misconduct.

3. If a rate is conditioned upon the shipper's agreeing that the carrier's liability shall not exceed a certain specified value, (a) the stipulation is valid when loss occurs through causes beyond the carrier's control; (b) the stipulation is valid, even when loss is due to the carrier's negligence, if the shipper has himself declared the value, expressly or by implication, the carrier accepting the same in good faith as the real value, and the rate of freight being fixed in accordance therewith; (c) the stipulation is void as against loss due to the carrier's negligence or other misconduct if the specified amount does not purport to be an agreed valuation, but has been fixed arbitrarily by the carrier without reference to the real value; (d) the stipulation is void as against loss due to the carrier's negligence or other misconduct if the specified amount, while purporting to be an agreed valuation, is, in fact, purely fictitious and represents an attempt to limit the carrier's liability to an arbitrary amount.

"4. A carrier may lawfully establish a scale of charges applicable to a specific commodity and graduated reasonably according to value. These rates must be applied in good faith, regard being had to the actual value of the property offered for shipment.

"5. A carrier must not make use of its released rates as a means of escaping liability for the consequences of its negligence, either wholly or in part.'

In accordance with said opinion and the law which it interprets, household goods where the valuation is declared by the shipper not to exceed $10 per 100 pounds are subject to lower rates for transportation and when the valuation exceeds said amount or is not stated, a higher rate therefor is provided.

The term "Carrier's risk" should therefore be abandoned as no longer expressing any clear idea, and instead thereof the words. "full valuation," "unlimited valuation." or some other expression

« AnkstesnisTęsti »