Banner Grain Company v. Great Northern Railway Company
| Citation | 137 N.W. 161,119 Minn. 68 |
| Decision Date | 26 July 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,578 - (129) |
| Parties | BANNER GRAIN COMPANY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $837 switching charges collected from plaintiff. The substance of the complaint and answer will be found in the opinion. The case was tried before Holt, J., who made findings and as conclusion of law ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for one dollar. From an order denying plaintiff's motion to amend the findings and conclusions of law and from an order denying its motion for a new trial, it appealed. Affirmed.
Switching charges -- carrier's duty to consignees.
Action to recover for the amount paid defendant for switching cars to plaintiff's elevator on the alleged ground that the exaction thereof was a discrimination. Upon the facts found the trial court ordered judgment for one dollar. Held:
1. A carrier is bound to treat all shippers with equality and without discrimination. It is also bound, unless there be custom or contract to the contrary, when it receives shipments in carload lots, to make delivery at the consignee's place of business when located on its industrial tracks, or to connecting carriers and switching roads when the consignee's business is located thereon. It is not, however, bound, at its own charge, to make such delivery beyond its own or leased tracks.
2. Findings of fact considered, and held that they sustain the conclusion of law that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for one dollar only.
Collins & Eaton, for appellant.
Cobb Wheelwright & Dille, for respondent.
This action was begun in the district court of the county of Hennepin to recover $837 for switching charges collected by the defendant from the plaintiff. The complaint alleged that between February, 1906, and May, 1909, the plaintiff owned and operated a grain elevator, known as the Quaker elevator located in the city of Minneapolis and on the tracks of the Chicago & Great Western Railway Company, hereafter referred to as the Great Western; that there were also located on such tracks four other similar elevators and industries, namely, those of the Archer-Daniels Linseed Company, Russell-Miller Milling Company, the Merchants Elevator Company, and a plant of the Republic Creosoting Company, which required and received similar service in switching cars as the plaintiff's elevator did; that such tracks were connected with the defendant's, the Great Northern, by a direct switch; that the defendant switched cars to such other elevators and industries without charge, but discriminated against the plaintiff and exacted and collected from it one dollar for each car switched to its elevator, in all eight hundred thirty-seven cars, for which it paid $837, and, further, that the plaintiff demanded of the defendant the same facilities as the other industries received, which were refused.
The answer denied that the defendant had discriminated against the plaintiff, and alleged that the plaintiff's elevator was not located on the defendant's tracks, nor upon the tracks of any other company over which defendant had the right to run its engines and cars to plaintiff's elevator, but on those of the Great Western; that the switching charges in question were collected by the defendant for the Great Western, with which it was a connecting line, and paid to it pursuant to its legally published tariff rate for such service, which was duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission; that by such tariff rate the charge for switching cars from connecting lines, when the origin or destination of the shipment was outside of the corporate limits of the station, was one dollar per car; and, further, that the shipment in each of the cars for which switching charges were made and paid originated outside such corporate limits.
The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The controlling facts were stipulated by the parties, and the trial court found the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial