James Clark McReynolds

“ He further alleged that about October 21, 1913, after repeated efforts to determine the damages, shipper made demand in writing for $1,570 and on December 15th, as soon as he was able to ascertain nature and extent of the injuries, made written demand for $2,695; that the carrier had repeatedly waived requirement for demand within ten days by recognizing the shipper's right to recover something and attempting to settle and compromise; and that subsequent to October 21st carrier through its claim agents had twice attempted to adjust with the shipper the loss and damage sustained. ”

“ Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U.S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. Ed. 917, and Erie R. R. Co. v. Stone, 244 U.S. 332, 37 Sup. Ct. 633, 61 L. Ed. 1173 (announced since the judgment below) , and the cases therein cited, no extended discussion is necessary to show that upon the facts here disclosed the stipulation between the parties as to notice in writing within ten days of any claim for damages was valid. And we also think those opinions make it clear that the circumstances relied upon by the shipper are inadequate to show a waiver by the carrier of written notice as required by the contract. ”

“ We have jurisdiction and the motion to dismiss based upon another view is denied. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 245 U.S. 359, 38 Sup. Ct. 130, 62 L. Ed. 345, and 245 U.S. 562, 38 Sup. Ct. 203, 62 L. Ed. 472. ”