Chesapeake Ry Co v. Westinghouse, Church Kerr Co Mellon v. Same
| Decision Date | 01 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | 171,Nos. 170,s. 170 |
| Citation | 70 L.Ed. 576,46 S.Ct. 220,270 U.S. 260 |
| Parties | CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. WESTINGHOUSE, CHURCH, KERR & CO., Inc. MELLON, Director General of Railroads, v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Thomas B. Gay. all of Richmond, Va., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 263-265 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These actions were brought in a state court of Virginia to recover amounts alleged to be due for the use of an engine and crew rented or assigned by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company to Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., Inc., under a contract made in September, 1917. The latter corporation was engaged in construction work for the government on premises at Newport News connected by industrial tracks with the railway's main line. Owing to war conditions, there was then serious congestion of traffic at Newport News, and the railway failed duly to perform spotting service for the company. To remedy this condition the engine and crew were assigned to the exclusive use of its traffic, payment to be made therefor as prescribed in the contract. The use continued from that date until April, 1918. The railway sued for the period prior to December 28, 1917; the Director General for that later. The defenses were want of consideration and that the contract was void, because it violated the Interstate Commerce Act (Comp. St. s 8563 et seq.) and a similar law of the state. A judgment for the defendant, entered in each case by the trial court, was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals on the ground of want of consideration. 123 S. E. 352, 138 Va. 647. This court granted writs of certiorari. 45 S. Ct. 98, 266 U. S. 598, 69 L. Ed. 460. No question under the state law is before us.
The service of spotting cars was included in the line haul charge under both interstate and state tariffs. The railway contends that under the tariffs no obligation rested upon the carrier either to furnish spotting service solely for the convenience of a shipper or to furnish him special facilities to meet abnormal and unprecedented conditions; that the contract was, therefore, not without consideration; and that, being for rental of equipment, it was not for a common carrier service and, hence, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
... ... (a) The fact findings of the referee have the same ... status as a special verdict of a jury and if ... 1066, 40 S.W.2d ... 529; Mellon v. Stockton & Lamkin, 326 Mo. 129, 30 ... charge is published. Chesapeake & O. Railroad Co. v ... Westinghouse, 270 U.S ... ...
-
Am. Telephone & Telegraph v. Cent. Office Tel.
...responsibility for the task would have been in flat contradiction of the tariff. See Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 270 U.S. 260, 266, 46 S.Ct. 220, 221, 70 L.Ed. 576 (1926). The Ninth Circuit distinguished respondent's claims from those in our filed-rate case......
-
China Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis, 380.
...Nor does it matter that it was a favor from the shipper to the carrier, and not vice versa. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Westinghouse Co., 270 U. S. 260, 46 S. Ct. 220, 70 L. Ed. 576. The statute forbids any discrimination, whichever side profits. It is quite true that the same option was g......
-
W.H. Blodget Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co.
...225 U. S. 155, 165, 32 S. Ct. 648, 650 (56 L. Ed. 1033, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501). See also, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway v. Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 270 U. S. 260, 266, 46 S. Ct. 220, 70 L. Ed. 576. If the defendant had heated the car it could not lawfully have made any charge therefor, ......