International Coal Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1908 |
| Docket Number | 69. |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL COAL MINING CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
J. W M. Newlin, for plaintiff.
Sellers & Rhoads and Francis I. Gowen, for defendant.
This was a suit instituted in the United States court against the defendant for an unlawful discrimination, and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $12,013.51. In due time both plaintiff and defendant filed motions and reasons for a new trial. Neither the plaintiff's nor the defendant's reasons for a new trial will be considered seriatim. The reasons for the particular rulings of the court objected to by the plaintiff and which are now made reasons for a new trial by it appear upon the record, and we think in every case justifies the view taken by the court.
One of the plaintiff's reasons assigned was the defendant's failure to produce certain documents called for at the trial and the court's refusal to give judgment against the plaintiff for default. The defendant produced all the books necessary to enable the plaintiff to prove all the facts alleged in its statement, and, in fact, admitted the payment of the amounts to the plaintiff's competitors in the coal business which the plaintiff alleged were paid by way of rebates, so that there was no necessity for the further production of books or papers.
The other reasons of the plaintiff for a new trial we do not think need to be discussed, with the exception of the tenth which is as follows:
'The court erred in charging the jury that the plaintiff could not recover for discriminations against the plaintiff practiced in any year in which the plaintiff had itself received the partial return from the railroad company on its freight paid.'
The evidence showed that the plaintiff had been a persistent solicitor for rebates and had received certain repayments with all its competitors up to about April 1, 1899. Subsequent to this date it was as persistent in demanding rebates as any of its competitors, but for some reason received none, and this continued during the balance of the time covered by the plaintiff's statement. The court refused to permit the plaintiff to recover against the railroad company for the period during which it was engaged in the violation of the law to the same extent as its competitors, although at the trial it claimed that, while it was violating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Express Co. v. Meyer
...which he assented. 114 S.W. 1052; 162 F. 585; 63 S.E. 809. 3. When both parties violate the law in making a contract, neither can recover. 162 F. 996. 4. The doctrine announced in 89 Ark. 154 and 121 S.W. 932 is not sound, and cannot be sustained. Hawthorne & Hawthorne, for appellee. 1. A c......