Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40 (1925). · Go Syfert
Search
Am. Ry. Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40 (1925). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
109 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 25 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1926 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1926 1976 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Secura Insurance, A Mutual Company v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.
W.D. Ky. · 2020 · confidence medium
Co. v. Springer, 172 F.2d 346, 349 (7th Cir. 1949) (citing American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40, 42 (1925)); see also Howe v. Allied Van Lines, 622 F.2d 1147 , (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 992 , 101 (1980) (holding military servicemen consignees were limited to remedies available under the contract negotiated by the government and carriers).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hollingsworth & Vose v. A-P-A Transportation
1st Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40, 41-42 (1925), it follows that Hollingsworth, in leaving the declaration space blank in the bill of lading, agreed--by virtue of the tariff's "unless" clause--to the 10-cents-per-pound maximum valuation.
examined Cited "see" Drug And Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference, Inc. v. United States (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40, 42 , 46 S.Ct. 15, 15 , 70 L.Ed. 154 (1925). 26 In addition, petitioners have cited no authority to the effect that the Commission is obligated to inquire into the legality of an embargo when determining whether lifting the embargo is a sufficient quid pro quo.
examined Cited "see" Drug & Toilet Preparation Traffic Conference, Inc. v. United States (3×)
D.C. Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U.S. 40, 42 , 46 S.Ct. 15, 15 , 70 L.Ed. 154 (1925).
discussed Cited "see" Colvin v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (2×)
Tenn. Ct. App. · 1928 · signal: see · confidence high
See American Railway Express Co. v. Daniel, 269 U. S., 40 , 70 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
American Railway Express Company
v.
Daniel
53.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 26, 1925.
269 U.S. 40
Mr. Blair Foster, with whom Messrs.' H. S. Marx, Robert C. Alston and A. M. Hartung were on the brief, for petitioner., No appearance for respondent.
Holmes.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit against the petitioning Express Company for the value of a parcel that was received by the Company for carriage but was not delivered. The Company admitted liability for fifty dollars but alleged that it could not be held for more, because the receipt that it gave fixed that sum as the value of the goods and a higher value would have required the payment of a higher rate. Under the ruling of the Court a verdict was found against the petitioner for a hundred dollars, interest and costs, subject to questions of law reserved, and judgment on the verdict was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, without opinion, by an evenly divided Court.

The goods were delivered by an agent and, after conversation between him and the agent of the Express Company, the latter put fifty dollars into the receipt as the value, neither party having any clear knowledge, and the receipt later was handed to and bound the sender of the goods. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. O’Connor, 232 U. S. 508, 514. The rate for carriage of property valued at more than fifty dollars was higher than that charged. The schedules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission were offered, to show the rates, but were excluded, and the judgment was affirmed seemingly on the ground that the sending .agent was not shown to have known that a lower valuation secured a lower rate, and that the car[*42] rier knew that the agent was ignorant of the true value of the goods. No argument is made for the respondent and it is plain that the judgment cannot be sustained. The carrier’s knowledge of the agent’s ignorance of the value was immaterial. It acted in good faith. The carrier’s schedules should have been admitted and bound both parties. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 652, 653. Southern Express Co. v. Byers, 240 U. S. 612, 614. American Railway Express Co. v. Lindenburg, 260 U. S. 584. The sender is bound to know the relation established by them between values and rates. Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Ry. Co. v. Woodbury, 254 U. S. 357, 360. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Esteve Brothers & Co., 256 U. S. 566.

Judgment reversed.