DEMING v. NORFOLK sr W. R. 00. 25
Demise v. Nonromz & W. R. Co.
(Circuit Oourl, E. D. Pennsylvania. June, 1884.)
1. C.ummns—Tn1:ouon L1Nns—Rns1=acrrvn Lunrnrrr or Commctrmc Grumman.
Several connecting carriers, having entered into certain contract arrange-
ments for continuous transportation on through bills of lading, at settled rates
of compensation, providing that each line should be responsible alone for its
acts or omissions, do not thereby become liable as partners for the undertak-
ings, representations, or misconduct of the carrier who receives merchandise
from a shipper.
2. SAME—DELIVERY—BLOCK IN Tmtousn Lruns-·Loss BY FIRE—NEGLIGENCR.
· Where cotton was delivered to a carrier to be transported from Memphis,
Tennessee, to Woonsocket, Rhode Island, upon through bills of lading, ex-
empting liability for tire, issued by the receiving carrier in pursuance of such
arrangement between the connecting carriers, and the cotton was delayed at
Norfolk by reason of a block caused by accumulation of freight on the line in-
tended to convey it therefrom, and was stored in the defen ant’s warehouses,
where it was burned, held, that the company so storing the cotton was not
bound to send the cotton forward by other lines, and was not liable for the
loss. The fact that the company had effected an insurance on the cotton is uu-
important. i
This was an action on the case by R. H. Deming & Co. against the
Norfolk & Western Railroad Company, and was tried without a jury
before the Hon. Wrnmam MOKENNAN and Wxnmsm Burma. The fol-·
lowing facts were found:
First. The Norfolk St Western Railroad Company, the defendant, is a cor-
poration owning and operating a line of railroad extending from Bristol,
Tennessee, to Norfolk, Virginia. At Bristol it connects with the line of the V
East Tennessee, Virginia &; Georgia Railroad Company, and at Roanoke,
about 130 miles east of Bristol, with that of the Shenandoah Valley Railroad
Company, which connects at Hagerstown with the Pennsylvania Railroad A
system. These companies have entered into certain contract arrangements
for the conduct of through business, under the name of the Virginia, Ten- `
nessee & Georgia Air-line, but there is no other evidence in the case showing
the terms of this contract than appears in the bills of lading and manifests,
and the conduct of the parties as hereinafter stated.
Second. On October 11, 1883, the plaintiffs, R. H. Deming & Co., who are
cotton buyers, shipped at Memphis, Tennessee, for Woonsocket, Rhode Island,
two lots, one of 50 and the other of 100 bales, and on October 17, 1883, an-
other lot of 100 bales. The shipment was made upon the Memphis & Charles-
ton Railroad, and three full bills of lading, all similar in form. The material
clauses of the bills of lading are as follows:
"MEMPIIIS & CHA1>.Lms1·0N RAILROAD AND CONNECTIONS.
"(East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad Company, Lessee.)
· "Oocr0Brm, 1883.
" Received of A. B. the following packages, marked, etc., to be transported
bythe Memphis & Charleston Railroad, and connecting railway and steam-
shtrp lines, to order, at Woonsocket, R. I., * * * upon the following con-
di ions:
"( 1) That the Memphis &. Charleston Railroad, and the steam-boats, rail-
road companies, and forwarding lines with which it connects, and which re-
ceiye said property, shall not be liable * * * for loss or damage on any ,
article of property whatever by tire or other casualty while in transit, or '
7 g )