Page images
PDF
EPUB

vessels or on different trains, provided an agreement for the carriage of the whole was made, the freight is an entirety, and the lien may be enforced for the whole amount of the freight upon a single cargo or train-load.2+ This lien is effective against the shipper when he attempts to exercise the right of stoppage in transitu.2 25

§ 692. No lien except for specific charge.

The lien exists only for the single charge, and the carrier cannot hold the goods until the payment of an entirely unconnected prior charge; in other words, there is no general lien for freight.27 Nor will notice by the carrier, to the shipper or even to the consignee, that he shall enforce a general lien on goods alter the case; since he must take them on the ordinary terms, an ex parte proceeding like a notice will not confer upon him any additional right to hold on lien.28 A general lien may be created by express agreement between the parties,29 but such an agreement will not enable the carrier to enforce against goods bought and shipped by the receiver of a bankrupt a lien for a debt of the bankrupt with whom the agreement was made. As to these goods, the receiver is an independent owner.30 The re

24 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. 577 (1894); Lane v. Old Colony & N. R. R., 14 Gray (Mass.), 143 (1859).

25 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 94 Ga. 636, 21 S. E. 577 (1894); Potts v. New York & N. E. R. R., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 239, B. & W. 284 (1881).

27 Rushforth v. Hadfield, 6 East (Eng.) 519 (1805); Leonard v. Winslow, 2 Grant (Pa.), 139; Goldsborough v. McCulloch, 5 W. W. & A'B. (Victoria) 154.

28 Wright v. Snell, 5 B. & Ald. (Eng.) 350 (1822).

29 Rushford v. Hadfield, 6 East, 519 (Eng., 1805); In re Northfield I.

& S. Co., 14 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 695.

30 Ex parte Great Western Ry., 22 Ch. D. (Eng.) 470 (1882).

ceiver would, however, be bound as to goods received from the bankrupt.31

TOPIC D-ADDITIONAL CHARGES FOR SEPARATE PARTS OF THE

SERVICE.

§ 693. General principles as to additional charges.

The entire service of the carrier in connection with a single shipment being conceived of as a unit, it should follow that only one charge may be made, covering the entire unit of service. Ordinarily this is true. The railroad company cannot make a variety of different charges for the facilities it uses and the servants it employs; for instance, it would be absurd for it to make a block signal charge or an engineer charge. It would seem to be the duty of the railroad to equip itself fully for the service it undertakes, and then to make a single rate to the shipper who wishes the transportation of certain goods to a certain place. This ought to hold true of all usual services which the carrier must render the shipper in the line of its duty, but as to services outside its obligation to the shipper it may render a separate bill if it pleases. More than this, there are, it must be admitted, certain extraordinary services in special kinds of shipments which are not required by shippers generally, and for which, it seems, it is more convenient, if indeed not more just, to make a separate charge.1

§ 694. Whether extra charges should be made.

From what has been said it will have been seen that in the United States ordinarily the single rate includes all charges.

31 In re Northfield I. & S. Co., 14 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 695.

1 The status of these additional charges is fixed oftentimes by statutory provisions.

Upon the European continent freight rates do not appear to be made in this way. There is, first of all, a terminal charge, which applies to all traffic, to which a charge for movement is added. In England at the present time a shipper may require the railroad company to segregate the rate, determining what part of it is fairly a terminal charge, and if he does not take advantage of the terminal facilities, he may demand under some circumstances a reduction in the rate to that amount; but, with us, the rate ordinarily includes the cost of delivery. It would seem to follow that extra charges should not generally be made by the carrier for the use of its facilities in delivering his property to the consignee; but this is not altogether agreed.

$695. Foreign system of itemized charges.

2

As an example of the English system of itemized charges for railway charges, the following abstract of a leading case is printed. As to one item, switching, the railway company claimed payment for shunting services performed by them in respect of the Salt Union traffic to or from their sidings at Malkins Bank and Wheelock, respectively. The traffic was salt outwards and coal inwards; and it was proved that as the works at Malkins Bank were in three sets or separate parts, and there were serveral points at which they communicated by sidings with the railway, the business of delivering full coal trucks and collecting loaded salt vans, and of bringing back and taking away empties, was considerable. The Salt Union sent a man to meet each train as it arrived, and he pointed out the particular sidings into which he desired trucks inwards to be put, or in which there were loaded salt vans to be hauled

2 North Staffordshire Ry. Co. v. Salt Union, Ltd., 10 R. & C. T. Cas. 161.

out. The railway company calculated that the time their goods trains were detained while the train engine was occupied in uncoupling trucks ready to go in the direction in which the train was traveling, averaged per diem at Wheelock one hour, and at Malkins Bank one hour. It was held that "if the time occupied by the railway company's engine at the Salt Union's request or for their convenience in shunting the Salt Union's traffic to or from their Malkins Bank Sidings exceeds for each train twelve minutes, and to or from Wheelock sidings exceeds six minutes, that the railway company may charge the Salt Union for time over the said twelve minutes and six minutes, respectively, during which the railway company's engine is occupied in shunting such traffic at the rate of 7s. per hour."

696. Charges for service before carriage is undertaken.

It would seem that the only basis for making additional charges against the shipper would be for matters connected with the carriage which the shipper expressly or impliedly authorizes to be done in his behalf. Thus it would seem to follow that as respects services precedent or subsequent to the carriage the carrier cannot dictate, and if the shipper chooses to perform them himself or make other arrangements for their performance he should be free to do so. This is well brought out in the case of 318 1-2 Tons of Coal.3 In this libel the issue was raised whether the railroad company could compel the shipper to employ the shovellers it furnished, charging ten cents per ton for their services, when the shipper could have obtained other shovellers for eight cents per ton.

Judge Shipman held that the railroad was not justified in demanding these charges; as in his opinion he discusses the question upon fundamental principles, a considerable extract is

3 14 Blatch. 453, Fed. Cas. 14,010, B. & W. 364 (1878).

given: "A common carrier is under an obligation to accept, within reasonable limits, ordinary goods which may be tendered to him for carriage at reasonable times, for which he has accommodation. The carrier cannot generally discriminate between persons who tender freight, and exclude a particular class of customers. The railroad company could not establish the rule that it would receive coal only from certain barge owners, or from a particular class of barge captains. It carries "for all people indifferently." But, while admitting this duty, the company has declared that, for the convenience of the public, and in order to transport coal more expeditiously, and to avoid delays, it will receive such coal only, from barges at its wharf, as shall be delivered through the agency of laborers selected by the company. This rule is a restriction upon its common law obligation. The carrier, on its part, is bound to receive goods from all persons alike. The duty and the labor of delivery to the carrier is imposed upon the barge owner, who pays for the necessary labor. The service, so far as the shovelling is concerned, is performed, not upon the property of the railroad company, but upon the deck of the vessel. The company is virtually saying to the barge owner, You shall employ upon your own property, in the service which you are bound to render, and for which you must pay, only the laborers whom we designate, and, though our general duty is to receive all ordinary goods delivered at reasonable times, we will receive only those goods which may be handled by persons of our selection. The law relating to carriers has not yet permitted them to impose such limitations upon the reception or acceptance of goods."5

4 Crouch v. L. & N. W. Railway Co., 14 C. B. 255 (1858).

5 Beadell v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 2 C. B. N. S. 509 (1854).

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »