American Railway Express Co. v. Levee, 263 U.S. 19

American Railway Express Co. v. Levee

263 U.S. 19

SCOTUS

1923

Check Treatment

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

*20 This is а suit brought by the respondent in a court of Louisiana to recover thе actual value of a trunk and its contents, weighing one hundred pounds or lеss, delivered ■ ilto the petitioner for carriage from Madisonville, Texas, to. Thibodaux, Louisiana, but not delivered by the latter. The plaintiff’s pеtition set forth the receipt given by the Company, which was in the usual form аpproved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and by which “ In considеration of the rate charged for carrying said property, which is dеpendent upon the value thereof and is based upon an agreed valuation of not exceeding fifty dollars for any shipment of 100 pоunds or less . . . the shipper agrees that the company shall not be liаble in any event for more than fifty dollars for any shipment of X100.pounds'or less”; with other language to the same effect. "At the trial the defendant relied upon this limitation of its liability. But the- Court following Article 2754 of the^Revised Civil Code of Louisiana held that the burden was on the carrier to “ prove thаt [the] ..loss or damage has been occasioned by. accidental and uncontrollable events,” and gave the plaintiff judgment for $863.75 and interest. The Court of Appeal took the same view and said that failure to make that proof ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍was equivalent to an admission of convеrting the property to its own use. The defendant applied to the Supreme Court of the State for a writ of certiorari, but the writ was “ refused fоr the reason that the judgment is correct.”

- A preliminary objection is urged that the present writ of certiorari was addressed to the Court of Appeal and not to the Supreme Court. But under the Constitution of the Statе the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is discretionary, Art. 7, § 11, and although it was necessary for the petitioner to invoke that jurisdiction in order to make it certain that the case could go no' farther, Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U. S. 55, when the jurisdiction was declined the. Gourt ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍of Appeal was shown to be the highest Court *21 of thе State in which a decision could be had. • Another section of the аrticle cited required the Supreme Court to' give its reasons for refusing thе writ, and therefore the fact that the reason happened to be an opinion upon the merits rather than some more technical consideration, did not take from the refusal its ostensible character of declining jurisdiction. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 366. Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 269. Of course the limit of time for applying to this Court ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍was from the date when the writ of certiorari was refused.

Coming to the mеrits, the limitation of liability was valid, whatever may be the law of the State in cases within its control. Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491. Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. Burke, 255 U. S. 317, 321. American Ry. Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U. S. 584. The effect of the stipulation could not have been escaped by suing in trover ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍and laying the failure to deliver as а conversion if that had been done. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 197. No more can it be escaped by a state law or decision that a failure to deliver shall еstablish a conversion unless explained. The law of the United States cannot be evaded by the forms of local practice. Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226, 230. Under the law of the United States governing interstate commerce the stipulа-. tion constituted a defence to liability beyond fifty dollars, unless the plaintiff, should prove some facts that took.the case out of the ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍protection of the contract. It had that scope in whatever Court it came up. The local rule applied as to the burden оf proof narrowed the protection that the defendant had secured, and therefore contravened the law. See Central Vermont Ry. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 512. Cincinnati, New Orleans of Texas Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rankin, 241 U. S. 319, 328. E. Borneman & Co. v. New Orleans M. & C. R. Co., 145 La. 150. *22 We think it. unnecessary to follow the arguments addressed to us into further detail.

Judgment reversed.