*1 imposition affirmed the made a vote 4-3 we when of the death sentence.

Gastwirth v. P. Mashbitz & Sons, Appellant. C. J., November Cohen,

Musmanno, *2 Price L. him Steinberg, Richman, James with Price, for appellant. & Steinbrook, and M. Brodhead, Peter him George with Paul, for appellee. Bowie & Henderson, Opinion 1964: May Mr. Justice O’Brien, Bros, defendant-appel- Gastwirth delivered to the chil- containing P. & Mashbitz cartons lant, Sons, Inc., The of $10,687.50. dren’s coats with a wholesale value authorized carrier is a common area Philadelphia County make local in deliveries other and to deliver to other carriers some At of the Commonwealth and elsewhere. parts point prior destinations, at the intended disappeared. to Mashbitz delivered dam- in assumpsit seeking Gastwirth sued Mashbitz non- A shipped for the loss of the merchandise. ages in the resulted in a verdict for Gastwirth trial jury excep- interest. Mashbitz’ amount $10,687.50, tions were dismissed and was entered on judgment appeal this followed. verdict; The contend that rule as appellees law in is this and that carriers case, in loss transit not an act liable occasioned any public on enemy.1 of God war appellant, the other contends under the hand, Pennsylvania a carrier can Utility Law, Public limit its liability and a establishing charging lower rate for (1) shipping 1 incorporated Pennsylva law rule is also This common in the Utility §407, P.S. §1177. Code 66 nia Public requiring (2) awith maximum valuation; stipulate writing the value of shipped. merchandise problems (1) for us then did to consider are: impose lower rate on the

shipped by (2) shipper, Gastwirth; and did the Gast writing indicate merchandise. wirth, the value of the If do not present, we find both conditions common incorporated rule, Law, prevail. guidelines specifically very Pennsylvania set out Public Law, §407, 66 P.S. Court Para §1177, Supe mount Dress Co. v. rior Ct. 76 A. 2d deals case which problem *3 with a similar to the one court, before this arising under the Interstate Commerce Act.

We have examined the evidence this case agree finding we must with the of that the court below charged permit the lower rates which li- limited ability charged plaintiff were not in this case. The charged upon may liability was the rate which not be limited.

There were two sets of documents in this offered plaintiffs-appellees receipts case. The offered the given by receipts to them the carrier. These found were by lading court the below to be bills of as defined §1-201 of the Uniform Commercial 12A P.S. Code, evidencing receipt a “document as §1-201, the of shipment by person engaged issued busi- the transporting forwarding goods”. ness of or Certainly plaintiff the offered exhibits meet defi- above nition. However, introduced printed which were exhibits with the name of Gast- wirth Bros. exhibits per recited a value of $50 appellant shipment. The contends that these exhibits bring the case are sufficient within the lia- limited bility provisions of the Public Law. However, lading of of a bill meet test fail to

these exhibits Code. provided Commercial in the Uniform above receipt goods, but, not evidence The document does document transmission. evidences rather, “person engaged busi- issued transporting forwarding goods” rather, but, ness of appellant much makes so which these documents, shipper, not were issued of, pass propriety of not at on the need this time We writings the failure offered because liability limited case from the rate removes this lower provision Utility Law. of the Public provisions liability to make the

In order specific applicable, all of Law requirements be satisfied. requirement of a lower bar,

In the case at rule remains therefore met; was not applicable. Judgment affirmed. Opinion

Dissenting Justice Cohen: shipper-appellee apparently was not satis- Here rendered the services the forwarder fied pick up engaged its a local carrier freight docks forwarder. a released value of lad- bill prepared. ing it would hold form which *4 agreement writing as to the value a declaration posses- while the are in recovery by local Thus, sion shipper to the be declared amount should since imposed a rate lower than would have local charged if the were declared at its been real value. shipper though ship- could have had his

Even up by shipper the forwarder and picked would ment pay obligated compensa- additional been have not pickup, tion to the forwarder for nevertheless ship shipper selected the local his carrier to ment to cost at additional forwarder’s docks an shipper per package. fifty-five not I do cents majority construe evidence as does the so as paid fifty-five per package determine that the cents the local carrier constituted a of a shipper agreed and thus relieve the of his value. release Paramount Dress Co. v. upon by Ct. 76 A. 2d 432 relied precedent majority, has no value as a There here. released value in. Here filled itself filled in the released value and thereby. hold that it

would is bound joins Justice Roberts opin- this dissenting ion. Appeal.

Blatt May J., Eagen,