Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Walton

Decision Date10 October 1938
Docket NumberNo. 4369.,4369.
PartiesCHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. et al. v. WALTON.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Before NORTHCOTT and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

Charles Clark, of Washington, D. C. (M. Carter Hall, of Richmond, Va., D. Lynch Younger and John C. Donnally, both of Washington, D. C., W. H. T. Loyall, of Norfolk, Va., Lucian H. Cocke, of Roanoke, Va., R. T. Wilson, of Petersburg, Va., and W. N. McGehee, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellants.

Arthur L. Winn, Jr., of Washington, D. C. (Benj. J. Brooks, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The carriers in this case demurred to the petition of the shipper who sought a judgment against them for certain sums of money which they had been directed by the Interstate Commerce Commission to pay to the shipper as reparations on account of unreasonable rates charged for the transportation of certain merchandise. The ground of the demurrer was that the petition was not filed within one year from the date of the reparation order as required by Section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, 49 U.S.C.A. § 16. The demurrer was overruled by the District Judge, and the carriers declining to plead further, judgment was rendered against them for the amounts claimed.

The question involved turns upon the interpretation of the statute which is as follows:

"§ 16. Orders of commission and enforcement thereof; forfeitures.

"(1) Orders by Commission for Payment of Damages. If, after hearing on a complaint made as provided in section 13 of this chapter, the commission shall determine that any party complainant is entitled to an award of damages under the provisions of this chapter for a violation thereof, the commission shall make an order directing the carrier to pay to the complainant the sum to which he is entitled on or before a day named.

"(2) Proceedings in Courts to Enforce Orders; Costs; Attorney's Fee. If a carrier does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit such order was made, may file in the district court of the United States for the district in which he resides or in which is located the principal operating office of the carrier, or through which the road of the carrier runs, or in any State court of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction of the parties, a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims damages, and the order of the commission in the premises. Such suit in the district court of the United States shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages, except that on the trial of such suit the findings and order of the commission shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and except that the petitioner shall not be liable for costs in the district court nor for costs at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless they accrue upon his appeal. If the petitioner shall finally prevail he shall be allowed a reasonable attorney's fee, to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs of the suit.

"(3) Limitation of Actions. (a) All actions at law by carriers subject to this chapter for recovery of their charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within three years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after.

"(b) All complaints against carriers subject to this chapter for the recovery of damages not based on overcharges shall be filed with the commission within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after, subject to subdivision (d) of this paragraph.

"(c) For recovery of overcharges action at law shall be begun or complaint filed with the commission against carriers subject to this chapter within three years from the time the cause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • JOINT COUNCIL, ETC. v. Delaware, L. & WR Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 15, 1946
    ...do I join in the earlier part. 1 Defendant relies upon Acheson Graphite Co. v. Mellon, D.C.W.D.N.Y., 21 F.2d 562, and Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Walton, 4 Cir., 99 F.2d 270; but these decisions actually sustain delayed actions to enforce reparations orders under the Interstate Commerce Act §......
  • Irvine v. Helvering
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 3, 1938
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Austin
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • July 28, 1961
    ...prior to that time, the one-year period commenced on that date. That is the "date of the order." § 16(3) (f). Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Walton, 4 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 270; Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. Davis, D.C.N.D.Cal.1925, 6 F.2d 236; Acheson Graphite Co. v. Mellon, D.C.N.Y.1927, 21 F.2d ......
  • Carothers v. Western Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • May 19, 1976
    ...the date of entry of the order. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Austin, 292 F.2d 415, 418-419 (5th Cir. 1961); Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Walton, 99 F.2d 270, 272 (4th Cir. 1938). Wisconsin Bridge & Iron Co. v. Illinois Terminal Co., 88 F.2d 459 (7th Cir. 1937), was a suit by a carrier agai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT