Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott

1916-04-03
Share:

Headline: Court reverses state-law verdict, rules filed federal bill-of-lading terms control interstate storage liability and make carriers’ duties uniform while goods remain undelivered, limiting state-law exceptions and private side agreements.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Filed shipping rules control storage liability for interstate shipments.
  • Shippers cannot privately change carrier liability by informal agreements.
  • Plaintiffs must prove carrier negligence for loss while goods remain undelivered.
Topics: interstate shipping, warehouse liability, federal shipping rules, bill of lading terms

Summary

Background

A shoe consignee, W. E. Prescott, received thirteen boxes shipped interstate; four boxes were picked up and nine boxes remained at the railroad’s depot. Those nine boxes were destroyed by a warehouse fire while held by a railroad company. The consignee sued the railroad first as a carrier, then withdrew that claim and pursued only a claim that the railroad was liable as a warehouseman under state law. A jury and the state supreme court found for the consignee.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether payment of freight and a receipt ended the federal contract so state warehouse rules could apply. It held the service of holding goods after arrival is part of “transportation” under the federal shipping law and that the carrier’s filed bill of lading and published rules controlled. The parties could not by private agreement replace the filed terms. Under the bill of lading the railroad’s liability while holding undelivered goods was that of a warehouseman governed by federal rules, meaning the plaintiff had to prove negligence. Because the loss was from a mysterious fire with no evidence of careless conduct, the Court concluded the state-court instructions and judgment were wrong.

Real world impact

The decision makes filed federal shipping rules — not separate local bargains or state law — the guide for a carrier’s storage responsibility for interstate shipments. It requires those suing for loss while goods remain undelivered to prove carrier negligence rather than relying on exceptional state presumptions.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases