Blair v. Sioux City & Pac. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 October 1899
• Citation: 80 N.W. 673,109 Iowa 369
• Parties: J. R. BLAIR v. THE SIOUX CITY & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and the CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellants, H. HOLLOWAY, Appellee, v. SAME Appellants, A. BROWN v. SAME Appellants, and G. W. MACOY, Appellee, v. SAME Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

80 N.W. 673

109 Iowa 369

J. R. BLAIR v. THE SIOUX CITY & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY and the CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellants, H. HOLLOWAY, Appellee, v. SAME Appellants, A. BROWN v. SAME Appellants, and G. W. MACOY, Appellee, v. SAME Appellants

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 18, 1899

Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.--HON. N.W. MACY, Judge.

ACTION to recover alleged unreasonable, extortionate, and illegal freight charges on hay shipped by plaintiffs over defendants' lines of road from Whiting to Council Bluffs. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.--Modified.

AFFIRMED.

Hubbard Dawley & Wheeler for appellants.

Harl & McCabe and Spencer Smith for appellees.

DEEMER J. LADD and DEEMER, JJ., dissent.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

Between January 1, 1889, and the bringing of these suits, in 1893 plaintiffs shipped many cars of baled hay from Whiting and Blencoe, Iowa, stations on the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. The original petitions alleged that defendants charged, demanded and received of plaintiff for the said shipments the sum of two local tariffs of said lines from Whiting (or Blencoe) to Missouri Valley and from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs; that at and about the time said shipments of baled hay were made..*..*..*..the defendant corporations were charging on shipments of baled hay from said stations of Whiting [and Blencoe] to points on the Chicago & Northwestern Railway east of Missouri Valley, and for like distances from the point of shipment, as Council Bluffs, the joint-rate tariff fixed by the board of railway commissioners of the state of Iowa, which joint-rate tariff was less for like distances than the sum of the two locals charged by these defendants on the shipments made about the same time of the same merchandise, and for like distance, to points on the defendants' roads." It then stated that the charge of the sum of the two local tariffs as aforesaid was in excess of the joint rate for like distances as fixed by the railway commission; that said charge was a violation of the joint-rate law, and constituted an unjust discrimination, and was an unreasonable and extortionate charge; that plaintiff was damaged, by reason of said extortionate and unjust charges and discrimination and charges in excess of the joint rates fixed by said railway commission, a certain sum, which was stated; that more than fifteen days before the commencement of this action written notice and demand were made upon each of said defendants for the amount of damages accruing to plaintiff on each of said shipments, and defendants have failed to pay the same, whereby they have become liable to plaintiff in three times the amount of the said damages, and judgment is claimed for said sum. The defendants demurred to these petitions upon the ground that there was no law requiring the defendants to make a joint rate for the shipment of freight over their lines; that the provisions of chapter 28, Acts Twenty-second General Assembly, and of chapter 17, Acts Twenty-third General Assembly, are unconstitutional, being in violation of the federal and state constitutions; that the board of railway commissioners had no authority to fix a joint rate for shipments over the defendants' lines of railway; that it was not unlawful for each of the defendants to charge its regular local tariff rate for transporting said hay; that it was not unlawful for the defendants to charge in the aggregate for said shipments the sum of two local tariffs on said lines; that it was not averred that the board of railway commissioners had given notice to defendants of the hearing at which the alleged joint rates were fixed; and that there is no joint liability of the defendants shown by the petition. Said demurrer was overruled, and thereafter each plaintiff filed an amendment to his petition, alleging that the shipments which have been referred to in the petition herein were through shipments from Whiting to Council Bluffs; that through billing was issued therefor, and a through rate for the transportation thereof fixed, demanded and received the defendants; that the said rate so fixed, demanded, and received by the defendants for transportation of said shipments equalled the sum of the two local tariffs from Whiting to Missouri Valley, and from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs; and that said charge was unreasonable, unjust, extortionate, and discriminating, in excess of the joint rate fixed by the board of railway commissioners of the state of Iowa, and in excess of the joint rates fixed and charged by the defendants for joint shipments of like character for like distances on their respective lines at or about the time of the shipments in controversy herein, as is more fully alleged in plaintiff's original petition. To the petition as amended the defendants again demurred for substantially the same reasons set out in their first demurrer. Before this demurrer had been ruled on the plaintiff again amended his petition, alleging: That the through billing of the hay was made by defendants in pursuance of a contract or agreement entered into between defendants for the through transportation of freight over their respective lines, and establishing between them joint through rates for such transportation of freight from points on the Sioux City & Pacific Railway to points on the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, and from points on the latter railway to points on the former railway, and providing for a division of such through rates in proportion to the mileage of said shipments over each of said respective lines; said contract covering all points in Iowa on their respective lines. That said freight was received in pursuance of said agreement by said Sioux City & Pacific Company; it, under said contract, fixing a through rate therefor, and collecting the same, and thereafter making division thereof with its co-defendant pursuant to said contract. That said through joint rate on said shipments so charged to this plaintiff exceeds eighty per cent. of the sum of the two locals from the point of shipment to Missouri Valley, and from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs. That during the entire period covered by the shipments referred to, the defendants, on their through shipments to points on the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway east of Missouri Valley, charged, as a through joint rate, eighty per cent. of the two local tariffs from the point of shipment to Missouri Valley and from Missouri Valley to the point of destination. The defendants filed a motion to strike a part of this amendment. The demurrer and the motion to strike were overruled. A motion which had previously been made for the production of books and papers was, by agreement, sustained. Thereupon the defendant the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company filed its answer, admitting that plaintiff shipped the hay claimed at and for the rates, charges, and prices stated in the petition. It admits that on joint shipments over the Sioux City & Pacific Railway from Whiting to Missouri Valley, and thence east from the Valley over the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, they charged eighty per cent. of the sum of the two locals, as alleged; admits the service of the written notice and demand; admits that plaintiff's shipments were made on a through billing, by virtue of an agreement between the defendants, and that the rates charged were divided between them in pursuance of such agreement; admits that said joint through rate on said shipments so charged the plaintiff for a greater portion of the time exceeded eighty per cent. of the sum of the two locals; that from July 9, 1890, to April, 1893, the rate was less than eighty per cent. of the two locals; admits that during the entire period covered by the shipments of plaintiffs, the defendants, on their through shipments to points on the line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway east of Missouri Valley charged as a through joint rate eighty per cent. of the two local tariffs from the point of shipment to Missouri Valley and from Missouri Valley to the point of destination; avers that the rate charged plaintiff was less than the sum of the two local tariffs between the points heretofore mentioned, and that on July 9, 1890, the defendants put in operation a special joint tariff on baled hay of five cents four and four-tenths mills, and all shipments of plaintiff after that date were made under such joint tariff; avers that during all of the time of the shipments made by the plaintiffs, as alleged by him, the defendant had the lawful right to charge its local tariff from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs on said shipments; and denies that the charge made and collected of the plaintiff was unlawful, or that it constituted discrimination, extortion, or an unreasonable charge; avers that from February, 1889, the distance tariff and classification made by the Iowa railroad commissioners have been in force over the defendant's lines, and that it has not made any charge in excess thereof, and that such rates were reasonable by force of the statutes of the state. Each plaintiff filed a further amendment to his petition, alleging that the tariff charged by the defendants on shipments to points on their lines of road east of Missouri Valley was less than the sum of the two locals, and less than the tariff charged plaintiff on shipments of the same kind for like distances to Council Bluffs; that the amounts charged to plaintiff on such shipments referred to in the petition exceeded the tariff charged for like shipments at and about the same time, and for like distances, to points east of Missouri Valley, by the amount claimed as overcharge in the petition. The defendant filed a motion and a demurrer to the petition...