Graves Truck Line, Inc. v. Hy Plains Dressed Beef, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 45484,45484 |
| Citation | 204 Kan. 275,462 P.2d 130 |
| Parties | GRAVES TRUCK LINE, INC., a Corporation, Appellee, v. HY PLAINS DRESSED BEEF, INC., a Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A primary purpose of the Interstate Commerce Act is the prevention of discrimination and preference.
2. Under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, common carriers operating
in interstate commerce are required to publish, file and post tariffs or schedules of their rates, and are obligated to adhere to their rates as published.
3. An interstate common carrier by motor vehicle may not charge either more, or less, than the rates specified in its published tariffs, nor may it under any pretext, refund or remit any part of the rates so specified.
4. Legal rights existing between a shipper and a carrier as to rates in interstate commerce are measured by the tariffs or rates published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and no deviation therefrom is permissible. (Following Kanotex Refining Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 142 Kan. 139, 46 P.2d 16.)
5. No act or omission of the carrier can estop it from enforcing payment of the full amount of the charges due, computed according to the published rates on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission at the time of the shipment. (Following Kanotex Refining Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., supra.)
6. Where payment of an agreed transportation rate results in an undercharge, whether the carrier has acted in good or bad faith in quoting the rate is immaterial, misrepresentation by the carrier not being a defense to the recovery of charges based on its published rates.
7. In an action by a carrier to collect the balance due on freight charges computed on the basis of the carrier's published tariffs, the shipper may not offset the damages it may have sustained by having to pay more than the charges quoted, since to permit such an offset would amount to a preferential and unlawful rebate.
B. G. Larson, Dodge City, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.
Don C. Smith, Dodge City, argued the cause, and R. R. Mitchell and David Patton, Dodge City, were with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an action to recover the balance allegedly due for transporting twenty-nine shipments of dressed beef from Dodge City, Kansas, to various out-of-state destinations. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant has appealed.
There is little dispute regarding the material facts. Between April 27, 1964, and June 5, 1964, the plaintiff, often referred to herein as Graves, carried twenty-nine shipments of dressed beef from Dodge City, where the defendant Hy Plains had its plant, to the metropolis of Wichita, whence it was transshipped to terminals in other states. Graves quoted and collected a rate based on an intrastate rate of forty cents (10cents) per hundredweight to Wichita and an interstate rate from Wichita to points of ultimate destination. In each instance the combined total of the intrastate and interstate rates was less than the current class rate.
By way of specific example, on shipments consigned to Arlington, Texas, cargo was first transported by Graves to Wichita, where it was interlined with Jones Truck Line of Springdale, Arkansas, to its final destination at Arlington. The total charge from Dodge City to Arlington quoted by Graves and paid by Hy Plains was $1.41 per hundredweight, computed by adding a rate of 40 cents per hundredweight to Wichita and $1.01 from Wichita to Arlington. This total charge was 50 cents per hundredweight less than the published class rate of $1.91. Other rates quoted by Graves were computed in like fashion and were likewise less than the class rates then in force.
Investigation conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission disclosed that Hy Plains was undercharged on the entire twenty-nine shipments in a total amount of $4,511.60. At the behest of the Commission, Graves commenced this action to recover the entire undercharge.
In its answer to the plaintiff's petition the defendant alleged that the original charges had been quoted by Graves as being correct; that had defendant not been misled by Graves, it would have used other means of transportation; and that because of Graves' misstatements and misrepresentations the defendant had been damaged and was entitled to a setoff in the entire amount for which it was sued.
Trial was to the court, where Hy Plains orally confessed the petition filed by Graves and stated it was 'obligated and indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $4,511.60.' Trial then proceeded on Hy Plains' setoff. Evidence was introduced by Hy Plains, and Graves offered no evidence. When trial was concluded the court found as a matter of law that Hy Plains was not entitled to a setoff and rendered judgment for Graves in the amount asked.
The defendant poses two questions on appeal. They may be paraphrased as follows: 1. May Hy Plains, as a matter of law, be charged a class rate rather than a duly published rate which is lesser in amount? 2. May Graves, as a matter of law, misquote freight rates without being liable to Hy Plains for damages caused thereby?
The first question proposed is somewhat enigmatic. However, in essence it seems to be that it would be unfair to require payment to Graves on a class rate when the published rate of a competing truck line was less than the class rate.
Testimony is found in the record that a published rate of $1.65 per hundredweight was charged by Frozen Food Express for shipping dressed beef to Arlington. This rate contrasts with the $1.91 class rate charged by Graves. One of the defendant's methods of computing its damage was based on this disparity and others similar thereto. In our judgment this evidence presents no justiciable issue and is wholly irrelevant to the central point of this lawsuit, as we trust will more fully appear from our subsequent discussion.
The obligations of a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce are governed by the federal Interstate Commerce Act, whose interpretation is a matter for the federal courts. These facts of commercial life were given early recognition by the courts of this state. (See Sechenberger v. Union Pac. Railroad Co., 84 Kan. 79, 113 P. 433, 33 L.R.A.,N.S., 391, and cases cited therein.)
Under the provisions of the Act, common carriers are required to publish, file and post tariffs, or schedules of rates, and they are obliged to adhere to their published rates. (13 Am.Jur.2d, Carriers, § 107, p. 647.) Section 217(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C.A. § 317(b), p. 292) applies specifically to common carriers by motor vehicle and this statute provides in substance that no motor carrier shall charge or collect more, or less, than the rates and charges specified in its published tariffs, nor may the carrier refund or remit in any wise any portion of the rates and charges so specified.
Cases have arisen in this court more than once respecting transportation charges. Our latest pronouncement on the subject of undercharges is Kanotex Refining Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 142 Kan. 139, 46 P.2d 16, which we believe is of controlling significance in the present case. The facts in Kanotex were as follows: Kanotex had an opportunity to buy some three hunbdred carloads of crude oil in Oklahoma City for shipment to its refiney in Arkansas City. The published tariff on crude oil between those cities was ten cents per hundredweight. Before buying the oil, Kanotex made an agreement with Santa...
To continue reading
Request your trial