Goods destined for export by rail to Mexico were shipped from
the point of origin over a series of connecting carriers under a
bill of lading issued by the initial carrier and covering the
shipment to the point of export on the Mexican border, the
transportation charges being prepaid to that point. The last
connecting carrier in the United States issued a new bill of lading
which purported to cover the shipment to its ultimate destination
in Mexico, but received no payment for transporting the goods other
than its share of that paid to the initial carrier under the
original bill of lading.
Held: under the Carmack Amendment, the second bill of
lading was void, and the last connecting carrier in the United
States is not liable for injuries to the goods incurred on a
Mexican railroad between the border and their ultimate destination
in Mexico. Pp.
331 U. S.
733-735.
145 Tex. 50, 193 S.W.2d 964, affirmed.
A Texas state court denied a judgment against an American
connecting railroad for injuries sustained on a Mexican railroad to
goods exported from the United States. The Texas Court of Civil
Appeals reversed. 190 S.W.2d 838. It was reversed by the Supreme
Court of Texas. 145 Tex. 50, 193 S.W.2d 964. This Court granted
certiorari. 329 U.S. 697.
Affirmed, p.
331 U. S.
735.
Page 331 U. S. 732
MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action to recover damages for injury to goods in the
course of an export shipment by rail. The Westinghouse Electric and
Manufacturing Company delivered to the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company in Sharon, Pennsylvania, goods ultimately destined for the
Mexican Light and Power Company. According to the bill of lading
issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad, the goods were consigned
to
The Mexican Light & Power Co. Ltd.,
c/o Fausto Trevino, Customs Agent,
(National Railways of Mexico).
The destination was Laredo, Texas, with the further
notation.
"For Export to: El Oro, Mexico, Estado de Mexico via Acambaro
via Laredo."
The Transportation charges were prepaid at the export rate, less
than the domestic, and they covered shipment not merely into
Laredo, but up to the international boundary.
The Texas-Mexican Railway was the last of the series of
connecting carriers over which the machinery was routed by the
Pennsylvania. The latter, having received the shipment at Alice,
Texas, continued the carriage to its yards at Laredo. At Laredo,
there was issued to Fausto Trevino, the agent, what formally
appears to be a bill of lading consigning the shipment to
petitioner at El Oro.
Page 331 U. S. 733
The record is silent as to the circumstances that brought this
document into existence, but it is admitted that the respondent
received no payment for transporting the goods other than its share
in the export rate prepaid to the Pennsylvania under the Sharon
bill of lading. Trevino did use the second bill of lading for
clearing he shipment with the Mexican customs, but there is no
showing that the first bill of lading would not have served as
documentation for this purpose. The respondent railroad then moved
the goods, still in the original cars, from its yards to the
international boundary. There, the shipment passed to the National
Railways of Mexico, and it was on its lines in Mexico that the
machinery was injured.
Petitioner brought this suit in one of the district courts of
Texas. Judgment went for the railroad. The Texas Court of Civil
Appeals reversed, 190 S.W.2d 838, but was in turn reversed by the
Supreme Court of Texas. 193 S.W.2d 964. We granted certiorari, 329
U.S. 697, because important issues affecting the carrier's
liability under the Interstate Commerce Act were pressed upon
us.
On full consideration of the case, if falls within a very narrow
compass. The goods consigned to Laredo moved on the bill of lading
issued at Sharon with the indicated connections, including the
Texas-Mexican. By virtue of the Carmack Amendment, 34 Stat. 584,
amended, 38 Stat. 1196, that bill of lading determines the rights
of the consignee. While each connecting carrier is, of course,
liable for damage occurring on its line, only the initial carrier
is liable for damage on any of the connections. Unless therefore
the Texas-Mexican Railway was an initial carrier with reference to
the Mexican Railroad, it cannot be responsible for injuries on that
road. And it did not become an initial carrier merely by force of
what purported
Page 331 U. S. 734
to be a bill of lading issued at Laredo unless the so-called
second bill of lading represents the initiation of a new shipment
on the Texas-Mexican.
We agree with the Texas Supreme Court that nothing happened at
Laredo to displace the duty which was created at Sharon for the
carriage of the goods by the Texas-Mexican to the international
boundary, or to modify the terms of its undertaking when, at Alice,
it received the goods under the Sharon bill of lading.
What was said of the shipment of cattle in
Missouri, Kansas
& Texas R. Co. v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383,
244 U. S. 387,
is precisely applicable to the shipment of machinery in this
case:
"The terms of the original bill of lading were not altered by
the second, issued by the connecting carrier. As appellants were
already bound to transport the cattle at the rate and upon the
terms named in the original bill of lading, the acceptance by the
shipper of the second bill was without consideration, and was
void."
No matter what the convenience which a consignee may derive from
a bill of lading issued by a connecting carrier on a through
shipment, unless the connecting carrier has received a
consideration for the bill of lading in addition to that which
flowed under the bill of lading issued by the initiating carrier,
the Carmack Amendment makes such second bill of lading void. It can
neither enlarge the liability of the connecting carrier nor
contract that of the initiating carrier. That is what was meant
when the
Ward case said that the purpose of the Carmack
Amendment was "to create in the initial carrier unity of
responsibility for the transportation to destination."
Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. of Texas v. Ward,
supra, at
244 U. S. 386.
This is an even stronger case for the application of this
principle.
Page 331 U. S. 735
For, in the
Ward case, the Court found the second bill
of lading void for lack of consideration, although it was "alleged
to have been issued in consideration of a special reduced rate
theretofore duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission,"
because there was "nothing to indicate that that special rate
affected the through rate already agreed upon in the original bill
of lading." 244 U.S. at
244 U. S.
385-386.
Properly finding that the so-called bill of lading did not
evidence any new and independent undertaking, when judged by the
rigid requirements by which bill of lading are valid under the
Carmack Amendment, the Texas Supreme Court was right in holding
that the shipment over the Texas-Mexican legally moved only under
the original bill of lading, that the Pennsylvania was never
displaced as the initial carrier, and that therefore the
Texas-Mexican was not liable for damage that occurred on the
Mexican Railroad.
Judgment affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE REED, with whom MR. CHIEF JUSTICE VINSON joins,
dissenting.
We are of the opinion that the respondent, The Texas Mexican
Railway Company, is the initial carrier under the bill of lading
issued by it at Laredo for carriage of the articles to El Oro,
Mexico. The bill of lading issued by the Pennsylvania Railroad was
for carriage from Sharon, Pennsylvania, to Laredo, Texas. Accepting
the interpretation of the Court that this Pennsylvania bill
required the delivery of the shipment by the respondent at the
International Boundary in Laredo, there remains the necessity of
causing the shipment to cross the boundary line and proceed upon
its journey into Mexico. As the Court concedes, the bill of lading
sued upon here was
Page 331 U. S. 736
used to clear "the shipment with the Mexican customs." It is
also plain that it was this latter bill that caused the shipment to
cross the line. Without it, the respondent could not have made
delivery to the Mexican railway system. The Pennsylvania bill of
lading called for delivery to the consignee's agent in Laredo,
Fausto Trevino. The consideration to respondent for its issue would
be a similar service for northbound shipments from the Mexican
Railways or promotion of respondent's export business.
The
Ward case,
244 U. S. 383, is
not an authority for the Court's holding. There, the suit was
brought on a through bill from a Texas point to an Oklahoma point.
The defense was that a new contract had been made with a connecting
carrier. It was said, p.
244 U. S.
387:
"The bill of lading required to be issued by the initial carrier
upon an interstate shipment governs the entire transportation. The
terms of the original bill of lading were not altered by the second
issued by the connecting carrier. As appellants were already bound
to transport the cattle at the rate and upon the terms named in the
original bill of lading, the acceptance by the shipper of the
second bill was without consideration, and was void."
The facts of this case seem to us entirely different, and to
require that the respondent railway accept responsibility as the
initial carrier.