EXPRESS COMPANIES

2 definitions found across Law Mind sources

EXPRESS COMPANIESAuthored
The Law Mind • 1003 words
Definition
Express companies are businesses organized to transport small, valuable, or time-sensitive packages and parcels with speed and care, over fixed routes and at regular intervals, in a manner designed to minimize the risks of loss or damage associated with the carriage of heavier or bulkier freight. Historically, express companies occupied a recognized legal category distinct from ordinary common carriers or freight forwarders, defined by their characteristic combination of regularity of schedule, fixed routes, and specialized handling suited to high-value goods. As common carriers, express companies assumed the legal duties and liabilities of that status — including strict liability for loss or damage to goods in their custody — while their specialized nature sometimes gave rise to distinct regulatory treatment and contractual arrangements. ---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Express" in ordinary usage suggests speed or directness — an express train, express delivery, express lane. The word carries no particular legal weight and does not imply a specific business form or set of legal obligations. Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Webster's (1913) defined "express" in the commercial sense as "a system for the prompt and safe transportation of merchandise, money, or valuables" and "a company or business organization for this purpose," reflecting the era when express companies were a recognized and dominant commercial institution. The gap matters: In legal usage, "express company" was a term of art designating a specific class of common carrier with defined legal duties, regulatory obligations, and liability rules — not merely any fast-delivery service. A researcher encountering the term in nineteenth or early twentieth century legal sources should not read it through the lens of modern courier services or package delivery without understanding the distinct legal framework that attached to this category. ---
Why It Matters in Research
Express companies were a major subject of commercial and regulatory law from roughly the 1840s through the early twentieth century, when firms such as Adams Express, American Express, Wells Fargo, and the United States Express Company dominated interstate parcel and money transport. Understanding the term is essential for researchers working in: **Pre-Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) era sources.** Before and during early federal regulation, the legal treatment of express companies developed largely through state courts applying common carrier doctrine. Cases from this period use "express company" as a term of art, and researchers must recognize that the legal duties attaching to these entities were shaped by both their carrier status and their specialized business model. **Regulatory history.** The Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor line of cases and early ICC proceedings treated express companies as a distinct regulatory category. When the Parcel Post Act of 1912 opened federal mail service to package delivery, it directly disrupted the express company industry and generated substantial litigation. **Liability and contract provisions.** Express companies frequently issued shipping receipts containing limitation-of-liability clauses. Courts in the nineteenth century extensively litigated the enforceability of these clauses against the backdrop of common carrier strict liability. Research into limitation clauses, released valuation doctrine, or carrier contracts in this era will encounter express company cases as primary authority. **Terminological drift.** The distinct legal category of "express company" effectively dissolved in the mid-twentieth century as the industry was consolidated and eventually absorbed into trucking and air freight regulation. Modern courier and parcel delivery services (UPS, FedEx, etc.) operate under different regulatory frameworks and are not referred to as "express companies" in contemporary legal usage. A researcher should not assume continuity between the historical legal category and modern delivery services. **Corpus connections.** Express company cases frequently appear alongside railroad law, interstate commerce law, bills of lading, and common carrier liability in nineteenth and early twentieth century digests and reporters. Searches should also extend to "express receipt," "express agent," and "express shipment" as related documentary forms. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines express companies as entities "organized to carry small and valuable packages expeditiously in such manner as not to subject them to the danger of loss and damage which to a greater or less degree attends the transportation of heavy or bulky articles of commerce," adding that an express company "may be defined to be a common carrier that carries at regular and stated times, over fixed and regular routes, money" — the entry trailing off but clearly orienting the definition around regularity of operation and the common carrier legal classification. Bouvier's treatment is useful for establishing that, as of the late nineteenth century, express companies were understood not merely as a commercial type but as a legal category: the definition centers on their status as common carriers and their structural characteristics (fixed routes, regular schedules, specialized cargo). What Bouvier's does not address is the regulatory evolution that followed — the Interstate Commerce Act's eventual extension to express companies, the consolidation of the major express firms into the American Railway Express Company during World War I, and the subsequent decline of the category as a distinct legal form. Researchers relying solely on Bouvier's will miss the regulatory story that is often the most legally significant dimension of express company disputes in the early twentieth century. No other major historical legal dictionaries (Black's, Wharton's, Rapalje & Lawrence) are represented in the source material provided, but researchers should note that Black's Law Dictionary editions from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries similarly defined express companies by their common carrier status and operational regularity. ---
Jurisdictional Note
Express companies operated interstate by their nature, and much of the significant litigation arose in federal courts or involved conflicts between state regulatory authority and interstate commerce. State courts did, however, develop divergent approaches to limitation-of-liability clauses in express receipts, and researchers should not assume uniform treatment across jurisdictions in pre-federal-preemption case law. ---
Related Terms
Common carrier Carrier (common carrier distinguished from private carrier) Bill of lading Express receipt Limitation of liability (carrier contracts) Released valuation doctrine Freight forwarder Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Bailment Carriage of goods
EXPRESS COMPANIESmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Com- panies organized to carry small and valuable packages expeditiously in such manner as not to subject them to the danger of loss and damage which to a greater or less degree at- tends the transportation of heavy or bulky articles of commerce. 10 Fed. Rep. 218. An express company may be defined to be a common carrier that carries at regular and stated times, over fixed and regular routes, money and other valuable packages, which cannot be conveniently or safely carried as common freight; and also other articles and packages of any description which the shipper desires or the nature of the article requires should have safe and rapid transit and quick delivery, transport- ing the same in the immediate charge of its own messenger on passenger steamers and express and passenger railway trains, which it does not own or operate, but with the owners of which it contracts for the car- riage of its messengers and freights; and within cities and towns or other defined limits, it collects from the consignors and delivers to the consignees at other places of business the goods which it carries. 44 Fed. Rep. 810. Their right to use the facilities afforded by a railroad depends entirely on contract; 117 U. S. 3. They are common carriers; 44 Ala. 468; 28 Ohio St. 144; 36 Ga. 669; notwithstand- ing a declaration in their bill of lading that they are not to be so considered; 98 U. S. 174; 15 Minn. 270. See COMMON CARRIERS. Like all other common carriers they must receive all goods offered for transporta- tion, on being paid or tendered the proper charge; 6 Hun 844; 5 Cush. 69; and if they cannot transport them within a reasonable time, must refuse them or be responsible for loss caused by the delay; 54 N. Y. 500; 76 id. 305; 64 III. 128. They may also refuse to receive dangerous articles for transport- ation: 15 Wall. 524; 107 Mass. 568. An express company insures the safe de- livery of the goods received at the destin- ation if on its own route; if not, safe delivery at the end of its own route to the next carrier; and will be relieved only by the act of God or of the public enemy; 33 N. J. L. 543; 58 Ill. 44; 49 Miss. 480; 49 Ν. Υ. 491; 69 Pa. 394; 101 Mass. 420; 52 Vt. 335. An express company may by special con- tract limit its liability for the value of goods lost; 69 Ill. 62; 62 N. Y. 35; 74 id. 125; 28 Ohio St. 144; 89 Ind. 475; except for losses due to its own negligence or mis- conduct; 93 U. S. 174; 93 Ill. 523; 74 Mo. 538; 87 Ν. Υ. 413. A contract between an express company and its messenger exempt- ing it from liability for injury to him by the negligence of the carrier, is valid and may extend so far as to authorize the ex- press company to contract with the carrier against liability to the messenger; but such contract will not enure to the benefit of the carrier having no knowledge of it or not having availed itself of it by contracting with the express company; 44 N. E. Rep. (Ind.) 796. The express business is an "industrial pursuit" within the meaning of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1889, and may therefore be carried on in Washington territory by a corporation formed there under a general law, or by a corporation otherwise duly formed or in- corporated elsewhere; id.; 10 Sawy. 441; 43 Fed. Rep. 467. By various statutes of New York, an ex- press company organized as a joint-stock company has all the powers of a corpora- tion, except that it has no right to adopt and use a common seal; 3 Abb. N. S. 168. A statement filed by an express company showing that the business was managed, and its property and effects owned, by five trustees, the names of four of whom, and their respective places of residence, were given; that there was one vacancy, and that "the persons interested as cestui que trust are the stockholders of said company, who change from day to day, and of whom it is impossible to make an accurate state- ment, owing to the frequency of such changes," was a substantial compliance with the requirement of an act requiring that the statement so filed shall show the full name of every member of such com- pany and his proper place of residence; 32 Ind. 19. See an epitome of the law on this subject at that date by Judge Redfield in 5 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 1; and three articles on ex- press companies as common carriers; id. 449, 513, 648. See also as to limiting lia- bility, 27 id. 570: discrimination; 1 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 390; and as to carriers by express generally; 20 Am. L. Reg. 602; 5 Myers, Fed. Dec. 647; 3 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 601; 18 id. 425; 16 id. 93; 23 id. 572.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In