Coal Mining Company v. Chicago Erie Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 14 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 92,BERWIND-WHITE,92 |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 131,59 L.Ed. 275,235 U.S. 371 |
| Parties | COAL MINING COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. CHICAGO & ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Henry T. Martin and Edward D. Pomeroy for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 372-374 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Edward W. Rawlins, William J. Calhoun, and Will H. Lyford for defendant in error.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court, by Mr. Chief Justice White:
The judgment which is under review awarded demur- rage on carloads of coal shipped by the plaintiff in error from West Virginia to Chicago, there to be re-consigned. (171 Ill. App. 302.) There are only two alleged Federal contentions:
1. That allowing the demurrage conflicted with the act to regulate commerce because no tariff on the subject was filed or published. The fact is that the railroad had complied with the law as to filing tariff sheets, and had also, long before the time in question, filed a book of rules of the Chicago Car Service Association, of which it was a member, relating to liability for demurrage, and a few days after had written the Commission a letter stating that the demurrage charge would be $1 per day. The argument is that such documents were not sufficiently formal to comply with the law, and hence afforded no ground for allowing demurrage. But the contention is without merit. The documents were received and placed on file by the Commission without any objection whatever as to their form, and it is certain that, as a matter of fact, they were adequate to give notice. Equally without merit is the insistence that there was no proof that the documents were posted for public inspection. Texas & P. R. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449, 51 L. ed. 562, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. C. H. Albers Commission Co. 223 U. S. 573, 594, 56 L. ed. 556, 567, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 316; United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, 56 L. ed. 568, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 323.
2. Conceding that a tariff concerning demurrage was filed, it is insisted it only authorized demurrage at destination, and the cars never reached their destination, but were held at a place outside of Chicago. The facts are these: The storage tracks of the railroad for cars billed to Chicago for re-consignment were at Hammond, Indiana, a considerable distance from the terminals of the company nearer the center of the city, but were convenient to the belt line by which cars could be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Services, Inc. v. K Mart Corp.
...after that date. Pp. ____. (c) Also inapplicable is the "technical defect" rule. See, e.g., Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. Co., 235 U.S. 371, 375, 35 S.Ct. 131, 132, 59 L.Ed. 275. A tariff like petitioner's that refers to another tariff for essential information, which t......
-
Wisconsin-Michigan Power Co. v. FEDERAL POWER COM'N
...the rates on file. This relieved the company of any violation growing out of charging the lower rate, Berwind-White Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. R., 235 U.S. 371, 35 S.Ct. 131, 59 L.Ed. 275, and constituted, we think, undisputed evidence that the company understood that its actions in this resp......
-
Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp.
...a filed rate; the shipper's remedy for irregularity or unreasonable rates is damages. See, e. g., BerwindWhite Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. Co., 235 U. S. 371 (1914); Davis v. Portland Seed Co., 264 U. S. 403 (1924). In Berwind-White, the Court held that filed tariffs falling short ......
-
Interstate Commerce Commission v. American Trucking Associations, Inc, 82-1643
...to nullify any effective tariff containing either substantive or formal defects. In BerwindWhite Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. Co., 235 U.S. 371, 35 S.Ct. 131, 59 L.Ed. 275 (1914), and again in Davis v. Portland Seed Co., 264 U.S. 403, 44 S.Ct. 380, 68 L.Ed. 762 (1924), we stressed t......
-
Table of Cases
...108 Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979), 232 Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Chi. & Erie R.R. Co., 235 U.S. 371 (1914), 162, 168 Bhandari v. United Potato Growers of Am., Inc., 2:10-cv-00851 (E.D. Wisc. Sept. 28, 2010), 217 Bhanusali v. Orange Reg’l Med. Ct......
-
The Keogh or 'Filed-Rate' Doctrine
...497 U.S. 116; Chi. & Nw. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick & Tile Co., 450 U.S. 311 (1981); Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Chi. & Erie R.R. Co., 235 U.S. 371 (1914); Imports., Etc. v. ABF Freight Sys., 162 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 1999); In re Americana Expressways, Inc., 133 F.3d 752 (10th Cir. 1997);......