Chesapeake Ry Co v. Westinghouse, Church Kerr Co Mellon v. Same, Nos. 170

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRANDEIS
Citation70 L.Ed. 576,46 S.Ct. 220,270 U.S. 260
Decision Date01 March 1926
Docket Number171,Nos. 170
PartiesCHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO. v. WESTINGHOUSE, CHURCH, KERR & CO., Inc. MELLON, Director General of Railroads, v. SAME

270 U.S. 260
46 S.Ct. 220
70 L.Ed. 576
CHESAPEAKE & O. RY. CO.

v.

WESTINGHOUSE, CHURCH, KERR & CO., Inc. MELLON, Director General of Railroads, v. SAME.

Nos. 170, 171.
Argued Jan. 25, 1926.
Decided March 1, 1926.

Messrs. Sherlock Bronson and David H. Leake, both of Richmond, Va., for petitioners.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 260-262 intentionally omitted]

Page 263

Messrs. Wirt P. Marks, Jr., Henry W. Anderson, and
Thomas B. Gay. all of Richmond, Va., for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 263-265 intentionally omitted]

Page 265

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...to the public by publication in the schedules and for which no charge is published. Chesapeake & O. Railroad Co. v. Westinghouse, 270 U.S. 260, 46 S.C. 220; Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155; Clegg v. Railroad Co., 203 Fed. 971; St. L.I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. West,......
  • Am. Telephone & Telegraph v. Cent. Office Tel., 061598
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1998
    ...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 cases involving......
  • China Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 380.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 8, 1931
    ...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 given ......
  • W.H. Blodget Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 5, 1927
    ...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, and it would ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...to the public by publication in the schedules and for which no charge is published. Chesapeake & O. Railroad Co. v. Westinghouse, 270 U.S. 260, 46 S.C. 220; Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155; Clegg v. Railroad Co., 203 Fed. 971; St. L.I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. West,......
  • Am. Telephone & Telegraph v. Cent. Office Tel., 061598
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1998
    ...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 cases involving......
  • China Fire Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 380.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 8, 1931
    ...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 given ......
  • W.H. Blodget Co. v. New York Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 5, 1927
    ...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, and it would ha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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