Story Case

The Buffalo and Canadian Railroad Company established a rule to the effect that it would refuse shipments of eggs and butter, unless the commodities were packed in Hazleton's patented enclosures; or unless the shipper signed a contract, freeing the company from all liability for loss, either from its agent's negligence, or accident. The New York Egg and Butter Company refused to conform to either regulation, and when the railroad company refused to accept its shipments, brought an action to compel it to carry the products. The New York Egg and Butter Company maintained that it was unreasonable to demand the use of Hazleton's enclosures, since others were equally as good and less costly. What will the court do?

Ruling Court Case. Seasongood Vs. Tennessee Transportation Company, Volume 21 Kentucky Law Reporter, Page 1142

Seasongood had some chickens and eggs to be shipped to Evansville, Indiana, and a box to Season-good at Cincinnati. He applied to an agent of the transportation company to send them to the points named, on a boat that afternoon. The agent promised that he would assume charge of the chickens and eggs to Evansville, but that his company was under an agreement with another company not to ship to Cincinnati, and refused to accept the box. However, the box was placed in the warehouse, and was stolen that night. This was an action brought for damages.

It was contended by the company that it was not liable, for it was under no duty to receive freight destined to a point beyond the end of its own line, which, in this case, appeared to be Evansville.

Mr. Justice Guffy said: "It is true that the company was not bound to undertake to deliver the box to the consignee at Cincinnati, but it was its duty to accept the box if tendered to it as a common carrier, for it was its duty to carry the same to the end of its own line, and there deliver, or offer to deliver, the box to some common carrier engaged in such business, to be by it forwarded to Cincinnati." Since the loss here was due to the company's refusal to accept the goods, and ship them, judgment was given for Seasongood.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

A common carrier is under a legal obligation to receive all freight which is tendered to it for shipment. It is entitled, however, to make reasonable rules and regulations concerning the time, manner, and place of tendering the goods for shipment. The carrier may refuse to receive goods if they are insecurely packed or prepared for shipment; or refusal to receive may be based upon the fact that the given article is dangerous, unless shipped under certain conditions. If a carrier refused to receive goods, which are tendered for shipment, and has no reasonable cause for such refusal, it is liable for all damages which result from such refusal.

Thus, in the Story Case, it appears that the regulations of the company were unreasonable. The carrier cannot make unreasonable conditions as to packing, in order to compel the shipper to sign a release, discharging the railroad from liability for loss or damage to such goods. The New York company will win in its action.