Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bell
| Decision Date | 09 January 1912 |
| Citation | 120 P. 987,31 Okla. 238,1912 OK 5 |
| Parties | ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. BELL et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The agent of an interstate railway and carrier contracted with a shipper to transport certain shipments of live stock from a point in Arkansas to a point in Oklahoma. Said shipments had to pass over the lines of the initial carrier and of one other interstate carrier. The junction point of these railways was in Kansas. No through rate had ever been filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and published as required by law, but the initial carrier had on file and published at the time an interstate rate on shipments from the point of origin of the shipments involved to its junction point with the delivering carrier, and the delivering carrier had on file and published at said time a rate from the junction point to point of destination. The through rate contracted for by the initial carrier was less than the sum of the combined rates of the two carriers. Held that, by reason of section 6 of the interstate commerce act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 380 [U. S. Comp. St 1901, p. 3156]), as amended by Act approved June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, § 2, 34 U.S. Stat. at L. p. 586 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1153]) the special contract was void; and that the delivering carrier who on delivery of the consignment to it by the initial carrier had paid to the initial carrier its freight charges in accordance with its tariff on file regulating rates from the point of origin to the junction was entitled upon delivery of the shipments to the consignee to collect and receive from the consignee the freight charges so paid to the initial carrier and its freight charges in accordance with the tariff of the delivering carrier on file, prescribing the rate from the point of junction to the point of destination.
Error from District Court, Kay County; W. M. Bowles, Judge.
Action by Charles C. Bell and another against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Cottingham & Bledsoe and Geo. M. Green, for plaintiff in error.
W. B Clark, for defendants in error.
This case was commenced in the district court of Kay county by defendants in error against plaintiff in error upon a petition which alleges two causes of action; the first of which is for freight charges amounting to $979.16 on 14 cars of sheep shipped from Horatio, Ark., to Ponca City, Okl., and the second of which is $144.88, freight charges on two cars of sheep shipped from Horatio, Ark., to Ponca City, Okl. The trial in the court below was upon an agreed statement of facts, and it is therefore unnecessary to state in detail the allegations of the pleadings. The substantial facts concisely stated, are: That on October 13, 1906, defendants in error entered into a contract with the agent of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company at Horatio, Ark., that rate on sheep from Horatio, Ark., to Ponca City, Okl., if shipped during the month of October, 1906, would be $90 per car double deck cars or two single cars as one double deck, minimum weight of single deck car to be 12,000 pounds. Relying on the statement of said railway company's agent, defendants in error, on the 13th day of October, 1906, purchased 14 cars of sheep and shipped them from Horatio, Ark., to Ponca City, Okl.; and on the 21st day of October, 1906, they purchased two more cars and shipped them from said station in Arkansas to the same destination in Oklahoma. Said shipments were made in single deck cars, and they were consigned by defendants in error to themselves, all charges to be collected at destination; and all of the shipments were to be made and were made over the Kansas City Southern Railway Company to Pittsburg, Kan., where they were delivered to the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railway Company, plaintiff in error herein, by which company they were transported from Pittsburg, Kan., to Ponca City and there delivered to defendants in error. After delivery of the sheep to defendants in error, the agent requested and demanded of them $979.16 as freight charges on the 14 cars of sheep shipped on the 13th day of October, 1906, and $139.88 freight charges on the two cars shipped on the 21st day of October, 1906, and $5 feed charges on the last two cars shipped, making a total sum of $1,124.04 demanded by agent of plaintiff in error as freight and feed charges on said shipments, which defendants in error refused to pay, upon the ground that they had entered into a contract with the agent of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, the initial carrier, to transport said sheep and lay the same down at Ponca City, Okl., for $720, which amount defendants in error tendered to the agent of plaintiff in error, who refused to accept same, and now prosecutes this action to recover the freight in the amount demanded by it immediately after delivery of the sheep.
It is admitted that on the first shipment of 14 cars of sheep, plaintiff in error paid to the Kansas City Southern Railway Company the sum of $433.16 for its services in transporting said 14 cars from Horatio, Ark., to Pittsburg, Kan., where the plaintiff received said shipments; and that it also paid the further sum of $61.88 charges by said railway company for its services in transporting the second shipment of two cars between said points, and also a feed charge of $5. It is agreed that at the time these shipments were made plaintiff in error and the Kansas City Southern Railway Company had no joint interstate tariff in force between Horatio and Ponca City, but that the plaintiff in error did have an interstate tariff duly published and in force between Pittsburg, Kan., and Ponca City, Okl., which shows a rate on single deck car loads of sheep to be 32 1/2 cents, with a minimum weight of 12,000 pounds; that at the time the shipments were made, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company had an interstate tariff, duly published between Horatio, Ark., and Pittsburg, Kan., showing the rate of single deck car loads of sheep to be 29 1/2 cents per hundred pounds, with a minimum weight of 12,000 pounds. It is admitted that the sum demanded by plaintiff in error as freight on said shipments is the same in amount as the freight under the regular tariff rates of said Kansas City Southern Railway Company from Horatio, Ark., to Pittsburg, Kan., and of plaintiff in error from the last-named town to Ponca City, Okl.; and that said tariffs were on file in the office of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and had been duly published according to law at the time of said shipments, but that defendants in error did not know at the time of said shipments that said tariff rates existed, and that they relied on the statements of said agent of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company at Horatio, Ark., as to what the rates were.
It was the contention of defendants in error in the court below that they were liable to plaintiff in error for only the amount of $720, the amount agreed upon by the agent of the Kansas City Southern Railway Company and defendants in error as the charges of freight for said shipments. Plaintiff in error, on the other hand, insisted in that court and insists in this court that such agreement was and is void; and that defendants in error are liable for the regular rates under the tariffs duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and published; and that it is entitled to recover said sum paid by it to the initial carrier under said tariffs and the amount of its freight under the regular tariff for transporting said shipments from the junction in Kansas to destination in Oklahoma.
The trial court decided, as a matter of law, that the contract between defendants in error and the initial carrier is void as being in conflict with the interstate commerce act; that the $5 feed charges was legitimate; and that plaintiff in error was entitled to recover the freight charges for the services rendered on its own line, and accordingly rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff in error for an amount equal to the freight under the regular tariff on its line from Pittsburg, Kan., to Ponca City, Okl., and the additional sum of $5 feed charges, making a judgment in the total sum of $--.
The only point in controversy in this case is whether plaintiff in error is entitled to recover the amount paid by it to the Kansas City Southern Railway Company under the regular tariff rate filed by it for services in transporting shipments of this character from Horatio, Ark., to the junction point in Kansas. A decision of this question necessarily involves an application of provisions of the federal interstate commerce acts then in force.
Counsel for defendants in error concede that a delivering carrier has a right to collect from the consignee the lawful charges made by the forwarding carrier and paid by the delivering carrier in the course of the shipment, and this principle seems to be well supported by the authorities. Loewenberg v. Ark etc., Ry. Co., 56 Ark. 439, 19 S.W. 1051; Moore & Son v. Henry et al., 18 Mo.App. 35; Potts v. N.Y. & N. Eng. Ry. Co., 131 Mass. 455, 41 Am. Rep. 247; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial