Eastern Railway Company of New Mexico v. George Littlefield

• Decision Date: 05 April 1915
• Docket Number: No. 320,320
• Citation: 35 S.Ct. 489,237 U.S. 140,59 L.Ed. 878
• Parties: EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, the Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. GEORGE W. LITTLEFIELD, J. P. White, and Thomas D. White, Composing the Firm of Littlefield Cattle Company
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

237 U.S. 140

35 S.Ct. 489

59 L.Ed. 878

EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, the Pecos & Northern Texas Railway Company, et al., Plffs. in Err.,

v GEORGE W. LITTLEFIELD, J. P. White, and Thomas D. White, Composing the Firm of Littlefield Cattle Company.

No. 320.

Submitted March 1, 1915.

Decided April 5, 1915.

Messrs. Gardiner Lathrop, Robert Dunlap, and A. H. Culwell for plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. W. A. Dunn, D. T. Bomar, and J. A. Templeton for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 141 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiffs in error jointly operate the Sante F e system of railway lines extending through Arizona, Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma into Missouri. The Littlefield Cattle Company owns ranches near these roads, and brought suit for damages caused by their failure to furnish cars needed for the transportation of cattle from points in Texas to points in Missouri.

The Cattle Company's declaration averred that finding, in the spring of 1907, that it would need 200 cars in which to ship cattle to market, it requested the carriers' station agent in May, 1907, to furnish these cars in lots of 50, at designated places on designated dates in September and October, 1907. The defendants accepted the order, and plaintiff, relying on the duty and promise, brought 3,900 head of cattle to the station at the time stated and tendered the same for shipment. The defendants refused to furnish the cars needed. Plaintiff was consequently forced to hold the cattle under herd for several weeks awaiting the arrival of cars wherein to ship the same. On October 18, 1907, plaintiff learned for the first time definitely that defendants would not furnish cars until several weeks thereafter, whereupon plaintiff was forced to abandon the shipment and return the herd to the ranch in Texas, which was distant from the station about 100 miles. By reason of the expense and loss of the market plaintiffs were damaged $35,000.

Each railway company demurred specially on the ground that it could not be required to furnish cars to go beyond its line in interstate shipment; and insisted that if plaintiff had any right of action it arose under the commerce act, and the United States courts had exclusive jurisdiction of the suit. The demurrer was overruled. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and, the judgment thereon having been affirmed by the supreme court of Texas, the case is here on a writ of error in which the assignments are said to present two questions involving the construction of the act to regulate commerce.

1. The decision in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Puritan Coal Min. Co. just decided [237 U. S. 121, 59 L. ed. ——, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 484], makes it unnecessary to do more than repeat that, under the proviso to § 22 of the commerce act, the state courts, by virtue of their general jurisdiction, can determine the right of a shipper to damages for failure to supply cars in cases like that presented by the plaintiff's pleading in the present suit. There was, therefore, no error in overruling the defendant's demurrer.

2. It is claimed that a Federal question, and one calling for the exercise of the administrative function of the Commission, was raised by the contention in defendants' answer that plaintiffs' demand for cars was unreasonable, and as the defendants were unable to comply with the...