Southern Pac Co v. Darnelltaenzer Lumber Co
| Citation | 245 U.S. 531,62 L.Ed. 451,38 S.Ct. 186 |
| Decision Date | 21 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 132,132 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. et al. v. DARNELLTAENZER LUMBER CO. et al. ( |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from 531-532 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Charles N. Burch and H. D. Minor, both of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Francis B. James, of Washington, D. C., and Allen Hughes, of Memphis, Tenn., for defendants in error.
This is a suit brought by the defendants in error to recover reparation from the railroads for charging a rate on hardwood lumber, alleged to be excessive. The Interstate Commerce Commission had found the rate to be excessive and had made an order for reduction from 85 to 75 cents, which was obeyed, and also one for reparation to the extent of the excess, which was not obeyed. 13 Interst. Com. Com'n, 668. A demurrer to the declaration was sustained by the Circuit Court on the ground that it was not alleged that the plaintiffs had paid the excessive rates or that they were damaged thereby. 190 Fed. 659. The declaration was amended, but at the trial the judge directed a verdict for the defendants, presumably on the ground argued here, that it did not appear that the plaintiffs were damaged. The judgment was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 221 Fed. 890, 137 C. C. A. 460. At a new trial the jury were instructed that if they found the rate charged unreasonable and that prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission reasonable, they should find for the plaintiffs in accordance with the Commission's award. The jury found for the plaintiffs and this judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 229 Fed. 1022, 143 C. C. A. 663.
The only question before us is that at which we have hinted: whether the fact that the plaintiffs were able to pass on the damage that they sustained in the first instance by paying the unreasonable charge, and to collect that amount from the purchasers, prevents their recovering the verpayment from the carriers. The answer is not difficult. The general tendency of the law, in regard to damages at least, is not to go beyond the first step. As it does not attribute remote consequences to a defendant so it holds him liable if proximately the plaintiff has suffered a loss. The plaintiffs suffered losses to the amount of the verdict when they paid. Their claim accrued at once in the theory of the law and it does not inquire into later events. Olds v. Mapes-Reeve Construction Co., 177 Mass. 41, 44, 58 N. E. 478. Perhaps strictly the securing of such an indemnity as the present might be regarded as not differing in principle from the recovery of insurance, as res inter alios, with which the defendants were not concerned. If it be said that the whole transaction is one from a business point of view, it is enough to reply that the unity in this case is not sufficient to entitle the purchaser to recover, any more than the ultimate consumer who in turn paid an increased price. He has no privity with the carrier. State v. Central Vermont Ry. Co., 81 Vt. 459, 71 Atl. 193, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 949. See Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shapiro v. General Motors Corp.
...under section 7 of the Sherman Act, predecessor of section 4 of the Clayton Act). Cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 531, 534, 38 S.Ct. 186, 62 L.Ed. 451 (1918). See also L. Green, The Rationale of Proximate Cause 122-23, 195-97 (1927); Polock, The "Injury" and......
-
United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission
...& Nashville R. Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield S. & I. Co., 269 U.S. 217, 46 S.Ct. 73, 70 L.Ed. 242; Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Co., 245 U.S. 531, 534, 38 S.Ct. 186, 62 L. Ed. 451. If they are reasonable, however, recovery is not precluded: damage specifically established can be recover......
-
Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement Dist
...Fire Insurance Co. v. Norwich & New York Transportation Co., 12 Wall. 194, 199, 20 L.Ed. 378; Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 531, 533, 38 S.Ct. 186, 62 L.Ed. 451. Impairment by the central go ernment through laws concerning bankruptcies is not forbidden by the ......
-
In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution MDL No. 31
...under section 7 of the Sherman Act, predecessor of section 4 of the Clayton Act). Cf. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 531, 534, 38 S.Ct. 186, 62 L.Ed. 451 (1918) (Holmes, J.) ("the endlessness and futility of the effort to follow every transaction to its ultimat......
-
Table of cases
...Handbook Southard v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2004 WL 3030028 (Iowa Dist. Ct. 2004), 62, 66 Southern Pac. Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 531 (1918), 447 Sperry v. Crompton Corp., 863 N.E.2d 1012 (N.Y. 2007), 57, 431 Sprint Nextel Corp., In re,593 F.3d 669 (7th Cir. 2010), 105 St. Pau......
-
Appendix B. Background of the Illinois Brick Decision
...The Misuse of the Hanover Doctrine, 72 COLUM. L. REV. 394, 399 (1972)); see also Southern Pac. Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U.S. 531, 533-34 (1918) (finding that a defendant is not liable for remote consequences, but, rather, a defendant is liable only to those with whom he is in ......