Fisher v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1908
• Citation: 95 P. 77,49 Wash. 205
• Parties: FISHER v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

95 P. 77

49 Wash. 205

FISHER v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 4, 1908

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Arthur E. Griffin, Judge.

Replevin by H. A. Fisher against the Great Northern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Ira Bronson, D. B. Trefethen, and Loren Grinstead for appellant.

L. C Gilman and B. O. Graham, for respondent.

HADLEY C.J.

This is an action in replevin, and involves a controversy concerning shipping rates, based upon a dispute as to the application of the interstate commerce law. The agreed facts are that the defendant railroad corporation files with the interstate commerce commission at Washington, D. C., and prints prints and keeps open for public inspection, schedules of all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation between different points on its own lines, and between points on the lines of any other carrier by railroad or water, when a through rate has been established, and keeps copies of such schedules plainly printed in large type for the use of the public in two public places in every depot, station, and office by it conducted where passengers or freight are received for transportation, in such form that said schedules are accessible to the public, and can be conveniently inspected. From the 19th day of May, 1906, continuously to the present time, the defendant has so filed, published, and posted for inspection a schedule of its tariffs in connection with Atlantic steamship lines operating from different ports in Europe, including the port of Stavanger, Norway, to Seattle, Wash. The said schedule names as a rate on canned goods from said Stavanger to Seattle 85 cents per 100 pounds and on cheese $1.31 per 100 pounds. The said schedule of tariffs also contains the following provision: 'The rates named herein will be protected only when freight is routed as ordered by a representative of the railroad companies parties hereto, and when the ocean rate procurable is such as to allow rail carriers from Atlantic seaboard ports a minimum proportion of seventy-five ($.75) cents per hundred pounds. If the difference between the through rate published herein and the rail line's minimum proportion of seventy-five ($.75) cents per hundred pounds is less than the ocean proportion, the through rate will be the ocean proportion plus seventy-five ($.75) cents per hundred pounds.' On or about the 20th day of August, 1906, and while said freight tariffs on canned goods and cheese were in existence and applicable to all shipments of canned goods and cheese from said Stavanger, Norway, to Seattle, the plaintiff applied to the defendant's authorized agent at Seattle for quotations of rates upon canned goods from Stavanger to Seattle, and was verbally informed that the rate was 85 cents per hundred pounds, minimum 30,000 pounds. The above verbal quotation was afterwards confirmed by letter from the agent to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted and relied on said quotation of 85 cents per 100 for canned goods, notified the defendant of such acceptance, and thereupon purchased in Stavanger and ordered shipped to Seattle by the defendant's line and its connections 483 cases of canned goods, of the weight of 38,733 pounds, and 3 cases of cheese of the weight of 416 pounds, without prepayment of any of the charges thereon. Said freight was routed as ordered by a representative of the defendant company, and carried by defendant and its connecting rail and water lines from Stavanger to Seattle. At the time the shipment was offered by the plaintiff and received by the defendant the best ocean rate procurable was 38.7 cents per 100 pounds, which, when added to the rail carrier's minimum of 75 cents per hundred, according to the aforesaid posted and published condition, made a total tariff of $1.137 cents per hundred on the canned goods. The published rate on the cheese was not affected by the condition, and remained at $1.31 per 100. In addition to the above, the defendant paid 61 cents costs of import bill of lading, and $1.40 customs charges. About the 6th day of December, 1906, the goods arrived at Seattle, with freight and customs charges due and unpaid thereon. The carriers of the shipment other than the defendant delivered the same to the defendant with freight charges unpaid thereon, and authorized the defendant to collect all freight charges legally due thereon. Upon the arrival of the goods in Seattle the plaintiff tendered to the defendant at its office in Seattle the sum of $336.69, which was refused. At the time said tender was made the defendant offered to deliver the goods to plaintiff upon payment of $447.85, which the plaintiff refused to pay. The defendant retained possession of the goods under claim of carrier's lien thereon until possession was taken from it by the plaintiff through the medium of this action. From the foregoing facts the court concluded that the defendant at the time of the commencement of this action was entitled to possession of the property by virtue of a carrier's lien amounting to the sum of $447.85, and also to a judgment for the return of the property, or, in case the return thereof cannot be had, to a money judgment for said sum. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the plaintiff had appealed.

That the shipment in question, although made from a foreign country to a place in the United States, is subject to the interstate commerce law, is evident from the terms of the law. Section 1, Act June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584, c. 3591 (U S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 892), provides among other things as follows: 'That the provisions of this act shall apply * * * to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad (or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used under a common control, management or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment) * * * and also to the transportation, in like manner, of property * * * shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United States, and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the United States or an adjacent foreign country.' The shipment being subject to the operation of the law, it follows that the provisions in relation to the posting and publishing schedules of rates on such shipments must also apply. Section 2 of the act provides as follows: 'That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the commission created by this act and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation between different points on its own route and between points on its own route and points on the route of any other carrier by railroad, by pipe line, or by water when a through route and joint rate have been established. If no joint rate over the through route has been established, the several carriers in such through route shall file, print and keep open to public inspection as aforesaid, the separately established rates, fares and charges applied to the through transportation. The schedules printed as aforesaid by any such common carrier shall plainly state the places between which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the classification of freight in force, and shall also state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, and all other charges which the commission may require, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules or regulations which in any wise change, affect, or determine any part or the aggregate of such aforesaid...