United States Reports (Volume 250)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1920. Excerpt: ... 465. Opinion of the Court. down a bridge they at once connected the chute and car and were about to lead out four horses when an engine pushed other cars against it and injured the animals therein. No written claim was made for the loss or damage as provided by the bill of lading; and when sued the carrier defended upon that ground. Respondents maintain that transportation had ended when the accident occurred and consequently no written claim was necessary. The courts below accepted this view. Under our former opinions, the clause requiring presentation of a written claim is clearly valid and controlling as to any liability arising from beginning to end of the transportation contracted for. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McLaughlin, 242 U. S. 142; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Leach, 249 U. S. 217; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Detllebach, 239 U. S. 588, 593, 594; and Southern Ry. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632. In Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Dettlebach we pointed out that the Hepburn Act enlarged the definition of transportation so as to include cars and other vehicles and all instrumentalities and faculties of shipment or carriage, irrespective of ownership or of any contract, express or implied, for the use thereof and all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation, and transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration, or icing, storage, and hauling of property transported; and we said from this and other provisions of the act it is evident that Congress recognized that the duty of carriers to the public included the performance of a variety of services that, according to the theory of the common law, were separa...