Story Case

Mr. John Arthur, of Hartford, Connecticut, conceived the idea of operating an express business on his own initiative. He advertised that he would transport packages of less than twenty-five pounds from Hartford to other points, at a much lower rate than that charged by any express company. His method was to gather up many small packages, pack them in 100 pound lots and ship them with the Adams Express Company under the 100 pound rate offered by the latter, thus enabling him to ship at a much lower rate than the express company charged for the individual packages. When the Adams Express Company became aware of Mr. Arthur's method, it refused to ship any of his 100 pound packages; whereupon, he brought suit, contending that the express company was a common carrier, and, therefore, bound to receive his packages for shipment. "Will he succeed in his suit?

Ruling Court Case. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company Vs. Southern Express Company, Volume 117 United States Reports, Page 1

On the thirtieth day of April, 1872, the St. Louis &

Iron Mountain Railway Company entered into a contract in writing with the Adams Express Company, in which the rights and liabilities of both parties were set forth; the railway company agreed to act as carrier for the express company. One clause in the contract read: "This agreement to remain in force one year from the first day of May, 1872, and thereafter, until thirty days' notice shall be given by either party to the other of its desire to discontinue the same."

On the first day of February, 1874, the Southern Express Company entered into a similar contract with the Cairo & Fulton Railway Company, and one clause read: "This contract to remain in force until terminated on either party's giving the other sixty days' notice of its intention to withdraw."

These two railroad companies consolidated, to form the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, May 16, 1874, and the two express companies continued their business under their respective contracts until April 1, 1878, when the Adams company, with the assent and permission of the consolidated railway company, relinquished its business to the Southern Express Company. On the twenty-sixth day of March, 1880, the railway company gave the express company the stipulated notice for a termination of the existing contracts. Whereupon, the express company brought suit, praying that the railway company be compelled to furnish facilities for the continuance of its business over the road.

But the Supreme Court held that the railway companies were not common carriers for the express companies, and in rendering the decision said: "The reason is obvious why special contracts in reference to this business are necessary. The transportation, if possible, must, for the most part, be on passenger trains; it requires speed and reasonable certainty as to the amount to be carried; it is important that agents of the express companies have custody of the goods and that railroad employees be excluded from a certain space set aside for the expressman in charge. It implies access to the train for loading at the latest and unloading at the earliest convenient moment. All this is entirely inconsistent with the idea of an express ness on passenger trains free to all express carriers. The railroad company does its whole duty to the public when it provides reasonable express service and it may choose its own agents for the purpose."

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

A public service company is under obligations to accept for carriage or transportation, merchandise and commodities, which it has held itself out to the public as being willing and ready to carry or transport for hire. It cannot accept goods for carriage today and refuse tomorrow. It cannot accept Smith's goods and reject the goods of Jones. But it is not called upon to carry for another carrier or give aid and comfort to its rivals in the same business.

In the Story Case, Mr. Arthur was taking advantage of the Adams Express Company. Presumably, the rates for smaller packages, as fixed by the Adams company, were reasonable, and the rate fixed by the company for other packages was based upon its assumption that a certain number of smaller packages would be shipped from each community. Mr.

Arthur was disturbing the business of the Adams Express Company, and asking the Adams Express Company to aid him in destroying itself. His suit must, therefore, fail.