Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.

124 F.2d 430

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1941-12-23
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Appellant brought this suit to recover damages totalling $750,000. It was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The undisputed facts are that Peyton was a writer and had prepared certain manuscript, which he tried to send by express to different people, in the hope of having a favorable review of it and thereby find a publisher. The package was never delivered to the persons to whom it was addressed and it may be assumed the express company is liable in damages but there may be some doubt about that owing to the imperfect addresses given to the express company.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Peyton v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
PEYTON v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY,124 F.2d 430(5th Cir. 1941)
PEYTON v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc., et al.
No. 9893.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 23, 1941.
Rehearing Denied January 8, 1942.
Writ of Certiorari Granted March 9, 1942.
See 62 S.Ct. 804, 86 L.Ed. ___.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas; Charles A. Boynton, Judge.

Action by Robert L. Peyton against the Railway Express Agency, Incorporated, and others, for damages resulting from failure to deliver manuscript shipped by express. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.
Robert L. Peyton (in propria persona), of Waco, Tex., for appellant.

Walter M. Nold, of Houston, Tex., and W.W. Naman, of Waco, Tex., for appellees.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant brought this suit to recover damages totalling $750,000. It was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. The undisputed facts are that Peyton was a writer and had prepared certain manuscript, which he tried to send by express to different people, in the hope of having a favorable review of it and thereby find a publisher. The package was never delivered to the persons to whom it was addressed and it may be assumed the express company is liable in damages but there may be some doubt about that owing to the imperfect addresses given to the express company.

Appellant appeared in person and argued his case in a very interesting manner. The suit is a common law action and not a suit arising under a law to regulate commerce, jurisdiction as to which is governed by28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8). Galveston, H. S.A. Ry. Co. v. Wallace,223 U.S. 481,32 S.Ct. 205,56 L.Ed. 516. Unfortunately, the receipt for the shipment contains a provision limiting the damages to $50 in case of loss. A Federal District Court is without jurisdiction unless the suit involves an amount in controversy exceeding $3,000. In suits for damages the adPage 431damnum usually fixes the amount necessary to give jurisdiction. But that is where the damages are left to the discretion of the jury. Where the damages are fixed by contract of carriage at less than the jurisdictional amount, it is elementary that the court can not entertain jurisdiction simply because of allegations of large damages incidental to the breach of contract. Southeastern Express Co. v. Pastime Amusement Co.,299 U.S. 28,57 S.Ct. 73,81 L.Ed. 20.

The judgment of the District Court was right. It is affirmed.Page 464