Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Maxwell
Decision Date | 05 April 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 181,181 |
Citation | 35 S.Ct. 494,237 U.S. 94,59 L.Ed. 853 |
Parties | LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. G. A. MAXWELL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John B. Keeble and Ed. T. Seav for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. John A. Pitts and K. T. McConnico for defendant in error.
This action was brought, before a justice of the peace in Tennessee, by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, to recover $58.30 as the amount of an alleged undercharge on the sale of railroad tickets. Judgment for the defendant was affirmed by the court of civil appeals and by the supreme court of the state. The case comes here on error.
The facts, which were said to be undisputed, were found by the state court to be as follows:
Defendant in error, G. A. Maxwell, after repeated interviews and correspondence with the representatives of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company in regard to rates on round trip tickets to Salt Lake City, pur- chased on or about the 1st day of June, 1910, 'two passenger tickets from Nashville, Tennessee, to Salt Lake City, by way of Chicago, Illinois, Denver, Colorado, and routed to return by Denver, Colorado, Amarillo and Fort Worth, Texas, and Memphis, Tennessee, and paid for each ticket the sum of $49. 50.
'There were at the time, published rates under the provision of the interstate commerce act by which fares over the route actually traveled, going and coming, aggregated $78.65 each, or $29.15 each more than was charged and collected therefor, making a difference of $58.30 between the amount paid by Mr. Maxwell for the tickets in question, and the amount that should have been charged and collected.
Under the interstate commerce act, the rate of the carrier duly filed is the only lawful charge. Deviation from it is not permitted upon any pretext. Shippers and travelers are charged with notice, of it, and they as well as the carrier must abide by it, unless it is found by the Commission to be unreasonable. Ignorance or misquotation of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging either less or more than the rate filed. This rule is undeniably strict, and it obviously may work hardship in some cases, but it embodies the policy which has been adopted by Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce in order to prevent unjust discrimination. The act (§ 6) provides:
'Nor shall any carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time; nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property, except such as are specified in such tariffs.' [34 Stat. at L. 587, chap. 3591, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8597.]
The scope and effect of the provisions of the statute as to filing tariffs (both in their present form and as they stood prior to the amendments of 1906) have been set forth in numerous decisions. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 802; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 628; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co. 204 U. S. 426, 445, 51 L. ed. 553, 560, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, 9 Ann. Cas. 1075; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S 56, 81, 52 L. ed. 681, 694, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 500, 504, 53 L. ed. 624, 627, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 309; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, 166, 56 L. ed. 1033, 1038, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 648, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co. 226 U. S. 441, 57 L. ed. 290, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653, 57 L....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Advance-United Expressways, Inc. v. CR Bard, Inc.
......Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97, 35 S.Ct. 494, ...Supp. 501 Gulf Railroad Co. v. Golden Triangle Wholesale Gas Co., 586 F.2d 588, 592 ......
-
Old Dominion Elec. Coop. v. PJM Interconnection, LLC
...... also represented to Old Dominion's agents that the company would "make [Old Dominion] whole for its fuel and other ... See id. at 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229 (citing Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley , 211 U.S. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, ... Id. (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Maxwell , 237 U.S. 94, 97, 35 S.Ct. 494, 59 L.Ed. 853 (1915) ). ......
-
AT&T v. New York City Human Resources Admin.
......Supp. 962 . AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Plaintiff, . v. . The NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ... to prevent unjust discrimination.'") (quoting Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97, 35 S.Ct. ......
-
Delta Traffic Service, Inc. v. Transtop, Inc.
...of rates is not an excuse for paying or charging either less or more than the rate filed." Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97, 35 S.Ct. 494, 495, 59 L.Ed. 853 (1915); accord Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Central Iron & Coal Co., 265 U.S. 59, 65, 44 S.Ct. 441, 4......
-
Filed Rate Doctrine Did Not Bar Robinson-Patman Claim Against Electric Utility
...and Duke Energy Corp. Id. at 785. 4 Williams, 606 F. Supp. 2d at 794. 5 See, e.g., Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94 6 Williams, 606 F. Supp. 2d at 790. 7 See, e.g., City of Newark v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 467 F. Supp. 763, 772–74 (D. Del. 1979). The cont......
-
The Keogh or 'Filed-Rate' Doctrine
...claims that collaterally attack the reasonableness of a filed rate. 25 If the rates are filed 22. Louisville & Nash. R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97 (1915); see also Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Nw. Pub. Serv. Co., 341 U.S. 246, 251 (1951) (“We hold that the right to a reasonable rate ......
-
Table of Cases
...1984), 263 Lotes Co. v. Han Hoi Precision Indus. Co., 2014 WL 2487188 (2d Cir. 2014), 37, 39, 364 Louisville & Nash. R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94 (1915), 157 Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181 (1985), 60 Lowe v. STB, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22325 (D.C. Cir. 2013), 341 Lower Lake Erie Iron Ore Antit......
-
Wandering along the road to competition and convergence - the changing CMRS roadmap.
...only lawful charge [it may collect]. Deviation from it is not permitted upon any pretext." Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97 (49.) Pet. for a Writ of Cert., Cent. Office Tel., Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (No. 97-679), 1997 WL 33485630, at *i (U.S. Oct. 16, 1997). (50.) ......
-
Detariffing and the death of the filed tariff doctrine: deregulating in the "self" interest.
...of detariffing domestic contract-type services by January 31, 2001."). (10.) Id. (11.) See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94, 97 (1915). The filed rate doctrine is a judicially-created doctrine created under the Interstate Commerce Act. In Louisville & Nashvill......