Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Whedbee

• Decision Date: 20 January 1913
• Citation: 153 S.W. 86,106 Ark. 237
• Parties: CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. WHEDBEE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

153 S.W. 86

106 Ark. 237

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. WHEDBEE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 20, 1913

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; Daniel Hon Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Thos S. Buzbee and George B. Pugh, for appellant.

A shipper is not entitled to order a car and use the whole of it for a small shipment for his exclusive benefit and then pay the less than carload rate when it amounts to less than the carload rate would have amounted to, neither can he load a car with goods which, under the tariffs, can not be mixed in a car and pay the carload rate on one commodity, even though he pays on the commodity taking the highest rate. 9 I C. C. Rep. 602.

A mistake of the agent or agents of the railway companies would not relieve the companies of the duty to collect the freight due according to the tariffs. 27 Ark. Law Rep. 126, and cases cited.

John W. Goolsby, for appellees.

OPINION

MCCULLOCH, C. J.

Appellees shipped a carload of freight, consisting of an engine and boiler, a sawmill outfit, corn grist rocks, shaftings and pulleys, and a lot of household and kitchen furniture, from Oliver Springs, Tennessee, to Mansfield, Arkansas, over the line of the Southern Railway Company as initial carrier and appellant, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, as connecting or delivering carrier. Appellees' agent prepaid to the initial carrier at the point of shipment the sum of $ 116, which sum was represented by said agent of the initial carrier to be the correct amount of charges for the consignment according to established rates. When the shipment reached the point of destination, appellant's agent discovered that the amount of freight, as prepaid, was not correct according to established rates approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and demanded payment of an additional sum, which appellees refused to pay, and they instituted an action of replevin to recover from appellant the possession of the property, which was being held for the additional freight and demurrage charges. Appellees made affidavit and bond for delivery of the property, and the same was by the officer taken from appellant's possession and delivered to them.

The cause was tried before the court sitting as a jury, and the court found in favor of appellees for recovery of the property.

According to the undisputed testimony adduced at the trial the amount of freight charges was, through mistake, misrepresented by the agent of the initial carrier, and according to the established rates approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission the amount should have been that which is now claimed by appellant. The mistake of the agent of the initial carrier occurred by reason of an incorrect combination of different classes of freight in the same carload rate, thereby allowing the total amount of the freight per cwt. to be included in one classification, and the single carload rate thereon being given.

The trial court, as the basis of its judgment, declared the law to be that "while the shipper must take knowledge of the tariff rates, that he is not compelled to take knowledge of the facts as to what articles can be or can not be combined and shipped in one car at carload rates; and whether or not the goods mentioned in...