American Express Co. v. United States Horse Shoe Co.,
244 U.S. 58 (1917)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

American Express Co. v. United States Horse Shoe Co., 244 U.S. 58 (1917)

American Express Company v.

United States Horse Shoe Company

No. 248

Argued April 30, 1917

Decided May 21, 1917

244 U.S. 58


Concurrent findings of state trial and appellate courts as to the fact of negligence will not be overturned by this Court in the absence of clear error. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Whitacre, 242 U. S. 169.

A carrier's printed form of contract for interstate transportation of livestock, plainly intending to adjust the rates in each case proportionately to valuations to be made by the shipper which should limit the carrier's liability, specified minimum or primary valuations for various kinds of animals with corresponding tariff rates and left blanks for insertion of the shipper's valuations connected with the statement that the same were declared by the shipper in order to avail himself of the alternative rates. In a case where the blanks for valuations by the shipper were left unfilled at execution but the rate charged and inserted in the contract was in accordance with the carrier's tariff as applied to the primary valuations, held that these

Page 244 U. S. 59

were the valuations adopted by the parties, and that the carrier's liability was limited accordingly.

Failure to post rates which are duly made out and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission does not affect their validity or the duty of a shipper to take notice of them.

A clause in a carrier's merchandise rate schedules providing that rates there must not be applied to livestock shipments construed as intended to leave the provisions of the livestock schedule concerning rates and valuations for independent interpretation uninfluenced by provisions in the merchandise schedules.

The effect of a contract made and signed by a shipper in lawful accord with established rate sheets may not be avoided by the suggestion that, through neglect or inattention, he did not read it.

250 Pa.St. 527 reversed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.