Hearings Before a Subcommittee on the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, Sixty-third Congress, Second Session, on Bills Proposing to Amend the Carmack Amendment: September 24, 25, and 30, 1914U.S. Government Printing Office, 1914 - 204 pages |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
50 cents agent agreed valuation amount animals bill of lading carload Carmack amendment carrier or party cattle cent CHAIRMAN charge claims committee common carrier common law common-law liability Congress consignee COWAN Croninger CULLOP decision DECKER declared ESCH estoppel express companies FARRAR FAULKNER filed fixed freight full value gentlemen HARRISON higher rate hogs interposing Interstate Commerce Commission Iowa limit their liability limitation of liability limited liability rate LINCOLN live stock live-stock contracts loss or damage lower rate matter ment owner party in possession pounds practice proposition public policy question race horses railroad company rates based reasonable receipt regulations released rates rier risk rule Senate shipment shipped shipper South Omaha statute steers STEVENS of Minnesota stipulation Supreme Court SYKES tariffs THORNE tion traffic transportation uniform bill worth WRIGHT
Popular passages
Page 164 - 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...
Page 81 - The amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier is liable shall be computed on the basis of the value of the property (being the bona fide invoice price, if any, to the consignee, including the freight charges, if prepaid) at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, unless a lower value has been represented in writing by the 354 INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION BEPORTh.
Page 197 - Claims for loss, damage, or delay must be made in writing to the carrier at the point of delivery or nt the point of origin within four months after delivery of the property, or in case of failure to make delivery, then within four months after a reasonable time for delivery has elapsed. Unless claims are so made the carrier shall not be liable.
Page 145 - Provided, however, That if the loss, damage or injury complained of was due to delay or damage while being loaded or unloaded, or damaged in transit by carelessness or negligence, then no notice of claim nor filing of claim shall be required as a condition precedent to recovery.
Page 164 - An act to regulate commerce," approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all acts amendatory thereof, and to enlarge the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission...
Page 187 - The limitation as to value has no tendency to exempt from liability for negligence. It does not induce want of care. It exacts from the carrier the measure of care due to the value agreed on. The carrier is bound to respond in that value for Opinion of the Court. negligence. The compensation for carriage is based on that value. The shipper is estopped from saying that the value is greater.
Page 81 - Xo carrier shall be liable for loss, damage, or injury not occurring on its own road or its portion of the through route...
Page 167 - States to a point in an adjacent foreign country, or for transportation wholly within a territory shall be liable to the lawful holder of said receipt or bill of lading or to any party entitled to recover thereon, whether such receipt or bill of lading has been issued or not, for the full actual loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it...
Page 77 - No carrier or party in possession of all or any of the property herein described shall be liable for any loss thereof or damage thereto or delay caused by the act of God, the public enemy, the authority of law, or the act or default of the shipper or owner, or for natural shrinkage.
Page 187 - The carrier must respond for negligence up to that value. It is just and reasonable that such a contract, fairly entered into, and where there is no deceit practiced on the shipper, should be upheld. There is no violation of public policy. On the contrary, it would be unjust and unreasonable, and would be repugnant to the soundest principles of fair dealing and of the freedom of contracting, and thus in conflict with public policy, if a shipper should be allowed to reap the benefit of the contract...