Bull SS Lines v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 06 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 9896.,9896. |
| Citation | 123 F.2d 943 |
| Parties | BULL S. S. LINES, Inc., v. THOMPSON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
L. Hamilton Lowe, of Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellant.
E. H. Crenshaw, Jr., of Kingsville, Tex., and Harry R. Jones, of Houston, Tex., for appellee.
Before HUTCHESON and McCORD, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.
Guy A. Thompson, Trustee for the San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad Company, Debtor, sued Bull Steamship Lines, Incorporated, to recover undercharges upon cars of freight switched at Corpus Christi, Texas. Cross-claim seeking recovery of alleged overcharges was filed by the defendant steamship lines against the plaintiff. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the amount sued for and against the defendant on its cross-claim. Bull Steamship Lines, Incorporated, has appealed.
The port of Corpus Christi was opened on September 14, 1926. On May 1, 1929, the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1, owner of the port facilities and 8.34 miles of railroad track, entered into contract with the San Antonio, Uvalde & Gulf Railroad Company, and four other railroad companies serving Corpus Christi, by which contract the railroad companies took over the management of the switching lines owned by and located upon the property of the District. The contract was submitted to the Interstate Commerce Commission and expressly approved by it on May 7, 1929. Under the terms of the contract, and in actual practice, operation of the properties alternated between the contracting railroad companies. During the period involved in this suit the properties were operated by the plaintiff, appellee.
Bull Steamship Lines, Incorporated, a common carrier of goods by water, transported freight from eastern seaboard points to Corpus Christi. When the boats arrived at the docks in Corpus Christi, they were unloaded direct into freight cars, and such cars were then at Bull's request switched by the plaintiff from the tracks adjacent to the docks to a team track where they were unloaded into trucks.
From May 1, 1936, to April 7, 1937, the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, switched 832 cars of freight over its facilities at Corpus Christi and charged therefor and was paid by the defendant the sum of $3,124.10. Long after these charges had been paid by the defendant the plaintiff brought this suit contending that a mistake had been made; that the switching operations were governed and controlled by a tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, which tariff had been in force and effect for the period of time here in question; and that, therefore, the defendant should have paid the sum of $7,230.06 for the said switching services — a difference of $4,105.96. By its suit it sought to and did recover this amount plus interest from April, 1937.
The defendant admits the performance of the switching service and that such operations were interstate movements, but contends that the amount charged and paid for the period in question was the proper and lawful charge for such services.
Decision must turn squarely upon the provisions of "Item 1" of "Tariff 54-F", which is here set out in full:
Rates in dollars and cents per car on all Classes and Commodities loaded by and at the expense of the shipper, and unloaded by and at the expense of the consignee, between points shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BETWEEN | AND | RATE PER
(On the One | (On the Other | CAR
Hand) | Hand) |
-----------------------|------------------------|---------------------
| All points on the |
| facilities operated |
| by the |
| Corpus Christi | Rate* Cancelled
| Terminal Association |
All points on the | at Corpus |
facilities operated | Christi, |
by the | Texas. |
Corpus Christi |------------------------|---------------------
Terminal Association | Industries or |
at Corpus | Team Tracks |
Christi, | within established |
Texas. | switching...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Pan American Mail Line, Inc.
...Abattoir Co., supra; Silent Sioux Corp. v. Chicago and North Western Ry., 262 F.2d 474, 475-476 (8th Cir. 1959); Bull S.S. Lines v. Thompson, 123 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir. 1941); Prince Line Ltd. v. Amer. Paper Exports, Inc., 45 F.2d 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1930); Central Warehouse Co. v. Chicago, Rock......
-
Johnson Motor Transport v. United States
...carrier will be treated as though it were a Federal statute binding upon both the carrier and the shipper, Bull S.S. Lines v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 943, 944, certiorari denied 315 U.S. 816, 62 S.Ct. 805, 86 L. Ed. 1214; Jackson & Perkins Co. v. Mushroom Transportation Company, 19......
-
National Surety Corp. v. Western Fire & Indemnity Co.
...336 S.W.2d 905, 907; Fidelity-Phenix Fire Insurance Co. v. Farm Air Service, 5 Cir., 255 F.2d 658, 661. 9 Bull S.S. Lines v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 123 F.2d 943, 944, c.d. 315 U.S. 816, 62 S.Ct. 805, 86 L.Ed. 1214; Coleman v. Kettering, Tex.Civ.App., 289 S.W.2d 953, 956; Wood Motor Co. v. Nebel,......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. International Property Management, Inc., 90-2828
...is clear and unambiguous, principles of construction cannot be applied to vary the meaning of that contract. Bull S.S. Lines v. Thompson, 123 F.2d 943, 944 (5th Cir.1941), cert. denied, 315 U.S. 816, 62 S.Ct. 805, 86 L.Ed. 1214 (1942); Reilly v. Rangers Management, Inc., 727 S.W.2d 527, 529......