Bond v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.

Decision Date15 December 1885
Citation67 Iowa 712,25 N.W. 892
PartiesBOND v. WABASH, ST. L. & P. RY. CO.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Pottawattamie circuit court.

Action to recover for refusal of defendant to transport corn for plaintiff, and for failure of defendant to transport corn with promptness, by reason whereof it sustained injury. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.D. H. Solomon, for appellant, Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.

Sapp & Pusey, for appellee, N. J. Bond.

BECK, C. J.

1. The petition is in five counts. The first alleges the corporate capacity of the defendant, and the route and extent of its railroad. The second alleges that defendant refused to furnish cars for transportation of corn from Mineola, a station on defendant's railroad, to St. Louis, which plaintiff had contracted to deliver upon the cars at Mineola. The third count alleges that defendant refused to furnish plaintiff cars to transport corn from Mineola to Toledo, Ohio, St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri, although defendant was then furnishing cars to other persons for transportation of property to the cities just mentioned. The fourth alleges that defendant refused to draw cars of the Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company from Council Bluffs to Mineola, to be there loaded with plaintiff's corn, and to be transported to Council Bluffs, and there delivered to the Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company, to be hauled to the places of their destination. The fifth count alleges that plaintiff shipped upon defendant's railroad, to be transported to Toledo, Ohio, certain corn, which was injured by unreasonable delay, caused by the neglect of defendant. The petition claims to recover upon the second and fifth counts actual damages, and upon the third and fourth treble damages. The jury found the damages as claimed by plaintiff,--actual damages on the second and fifth counts, and treble damages on the third and fourth.

2. Plaintiff claims to recover upon the third and fourth counts under chapter 77, § 13, Acts Seventeenth Gen. Assembly, (Miller's Code, 35.) The case was tried on the theory that upon the case made by these counts and the evidence plaintiff is entitled to recover under that provision treble damages, the court so holding in instructions and in other rulings. So much of the section of the act referred to as is necessary to quote is as follows: “Any railroad corporation which shall violate any of the provisions of this act as to extortion or unjust discrimination shall forfeit, for every such offense, to the person, company, or corporation aggrieved thereby, three times the actual damages sustained or overcharges paid by the said party aggrieved, together with the costs, and reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court.” The provisions, the violation of which subjects a railroad company to the penalty prescribed, are found in the following sections of the statute:

Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of any railroad corporation, when within their power to do so, and upon reasonable notice, to furnish suitable cars to any and all persons who may apply therefor, for the transportation of any and all kinds of freight, and to receive and transport such freight with all reasonable dispatch, and to provide and keep suitable facilities for receiving and hauling the same at any depot on the line of its road; and also to receive and transport in like manner the empty or loaded cars furnished by any connecting road, to be delivered at any station or stations on the line of its road, to be loaded or discharged or reloaded and returned to the road so connecting, and for compensation it shall not demand or receive any greater sum than is accepted by it from any other connecting railroad for a similar service.

Sec. 11. No railroad corporation shall charge, demand, or receive from any person, company, or corporation, for the transportation of persons or property, or for any other service, a greater sum than it shall at the same time charge, demand, or receive from any other person, company, or corporation for a like service from the same place, or upon like conditions or under similar circumstances, and all concession of rates, drawbacks, and contracts for special rates shall be open to and allowed all persons, companies, and corporations alike, at the same rate per ton per mile by car-load, upon like condition and under similar circumstances, unless, by reason of the extra cost of transportation per car-load from a different point, the same would be unreasonable and inequitable; and shall charge no more for transporting freight from any point on its line than a fair and just proportion of the price it charges for the same kind of freight transported from any other point.

Sec. 12. No railroad company shall charge, demand, or receive from any person, company, or corporation an unreasonable price for the transportation of persons or property, or for the handling or sorting of freight, or for the use of its cars, or for any privilege or service afforded by it in the transaction of its business as a railroad corporation.”

3. The “extortion or unjust...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Seevers v. Cleveland Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1914
    ...trial court, and this is especially true where, while the issues are multiple, they have been disposed of in a single judgment. Bond v. Ry. Co., 67 Iowa 712; Ruth McPherson, 150 Mo.App. 694 (131 S.W. 474); Dyer v. Haley, 29 Me. 277; Railway Co. v. McAlpine, 80 Ala. 73; Goodsell v. W. U. Tel......
  • Seevers v. Cleveland Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1914
    ...court, and this is especially true where, while the issues are multiple, they have been disposed of in a single judgment. Bond v. Ry. Co., 67 Iowa, 712, 25 N. W. 892;Ruth v. McPherson, 150 Mo. App. 694, 131 S. W. 474; Dyer v. Haley, 29 Me. 277; Ry. Co. v. McAlpine, 80 Ala. 73; Goodsell v. W......
  • Bond v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific R'y Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1885

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