Swift & Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 41.,41. |
| Citation | 16 F.2d 17 |
| Parties | SWIFT & CO. v. NEW YORK CENT. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Lewis A. Ackley, of New York City, Ross Dean Rynder and William N. Strack, both of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error.
Alex S. Lyman, of New York City (William Mann, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants in error.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and HAND, Circuit Judges.
HOUGH, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above)
This case lies within very narrow limits. Admittedly the several tariffs or charges imposed on plaintiff's beef were, considered by themselves, reasonable. If any one wished to send goods from alongside a ship within the lighterage limits of New York Harbor to Weehawken and thence to Thirty-Third Street, the charges made were reasonable and right. But plaintiff did not want to send any goods by that route; it requested transportation from alongside a ship to Thirty-Third Street, and defendants accepted the goods so consigned.
As it is not suggested that they could refuse the goods, or that they wished to refuse them, we shall assume that their duty as common carriers extended to the transportation of these goods. We think decision depends upon the proper interpretation of the opening words of subdivision 1 of section 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, viz.:
"That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the Commission created by this act and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation between different points on its own route," etc. Comp. St. § 8569.
If any ship within lighterage limits in New York Harbor was a "point on its own route," then it was obligatory under the statute as we read it to publish and charge a reasonable rate from that ship to any other point on defendants' line. But it does not follow that defendants had the impossible task of anticipating the arrival of ships and the transportation from unexpected ships to unusual points of any and all cargoes, because, under subdivision 4 of section 1 of the statute, as amended, the common carrier's duty was to "provide and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor, and to establish through routes and just and reasonable rates," etc. Comp. St. § 8563.
It was perfectly possible, when the request for transportation from ship's side to Thirty-Third Street was made, instantly to declare and publish a rate. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Sinclair Prairie Oil Co.
...56 F.2d 163; Hygrade Food Products Corp. v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. et al., D.C., 10 F.Supp. 767; Swift & Co. v. New York Central R. Co. et al., 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 17; Magnolia Provision Co. v. Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. Co., D.C., 20 F.2d 384, affirmed in Beaumont, Sour Lake & W. Ry. Co......
-
United States v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
...a reasonable charge and the amount of an exorbitant unpublished charge coercively exacted by a carrier still remains; Swift & Co. v. New York C. R. Co., 2 Cir., 16 F.2d 17; Cocke v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 5 Cir., 4 F.2d 961, certiorari granted 268 U.S. 685, 45 S.Ct. 639, 69 L.E......
-
United States v. Curran
... ... December 6, 1926. Silas B. Axtell, of New York City (Charles A. Ellis, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant ... Emory R ... ...