Gulf Ry Co v. Hefley, No. 255
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BREWER |
| Citation | 15 S.Ct. 802,39 L.Ed. 910,158 U.S. 98 |
| Docket Number | No. 255 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1895 |
| Parties | GULF, C. & S. F. RY. CO. v. HEFLEY et al |
v.
HEFLEY et al.
This was an action by J. D. Hefley and A. J. Lewis, composing the firm of Hefley & Lewis, against the Gulf, Colorado & Santa F e Railway Company, to recover a penalty under the Texas act of May 6, 1882. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Page 99
On May 6, 1882, the legislature of the state of Texas passed the following act:
'Section 1. Be it enacted by the legislature of the state of Texas, that it shall be unlawful for any railroad company in this state, its officers, agents or employees, to charge and collect, or to endeavor to charge and collect, from the owner, agent or consignee of any freight, goods, wares and merchandise, of any kind or character whatever, a greater sum for transporting said freight, goods, wares and merchandise than is specified in the bill of lading.
'Sec. 2. That any railroad company, its officers, agents or employees, having possession of any goods, wares and merchandise of any kind or character whatever, shall deliver the same to the owner, his agent or consignee, upon payment of the freight charges, as shown by the bill of lading.
'Sec. 3. That any railroad company, its officers, agents or employees, that shall refuse fuse to deliver to the owner, agent or consignee any freight, goods, wares and merchandise of any kind or character whatever, upon the payment, or tender of payment, of the freight charges due, as shown by the bill of lading, the said railroad company shall be liable in damages to the owner of said freight, goods, wares or merchandise to an amount equal to the amount of the freight charges for every day said freight, goods, wares and merchandise is held after payment, or tender of payment, of the charges due, as shown by the bill of lading, to be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction.' Laws Tex. (Ex. Sess.) 1882, p. 35.
Under that act the defendants in error commenced an action before a justice of the peace in the county of Milam to recover $82.80. After judgment the case was appealed to the county court of the county. In that court a trial was had, a jury being waived, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintf fs, and against the railway company, for the full amount
Page 100
claimed. That was the highest court in the state to which the case could be taken, and thereupon the defendant sued out this writ of error.
The facts appear in the findings made by the trial court, and are as follows: On August 4, 1890, Wolf & Kramer, a firm doing business in St. Louis, Mo., shipped from that city a car load of furniture to the plaintiffs, at Cameron, Tex. The shipment was by the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, and the bill of lading issued by that company named 69 cents per 100 pounds as the rate. At this rate the freight charges amounted to $82.80. On the arrival of the car at Cameron the plaintiffs presented this bill of lading to the agent of the defendant company, together with $82.80, and demanded the furniture. The agent refused to deliver without payment of $100.80, that being the amount of charges due at the rate of 84 cents per 100 pounds. This was the rate named in the printed tariff sheet posted in the railroad office at Cameron. As a matter of fact, before the shipment at St. Louis the rate had, by the companies, been reduced to 69 cents; but the new tariff sheet had not reached Cameron, and the agent was ignorant of the reduction. While declining to deliver the goods except upon payment at the rate named in his tariff sheet, he told the plaintiffs that he would telegraph for instructions. He did so, and was advised that the rate had been reduced, and to accept 69 cents; but the telegram was not received at once, and so the furniture was detained one full day. So far as appears, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company was not only a different corporation from the defendant, but under separate management and control, though, as respects through shipments, acting under a joint tariff.
A. T. Britton, A. B. Browne, J. W. Terry, and Geo. R. Peek, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
Page 101
The question presented by this record is this: Is the statute of Texas imposing a penalty for a failure to deliver goods on tender of the rate named in a bill of lading applicable to interstate shipments? While the amount in controversy is small,—so small, indeed, that the case could not be taken from a lower to the supreme court of the state,—the question is of no little importance.
At the time of this transaction the act of congress, known as the 'Interstate Commerce Act' (24 Stat. 379), as amended (25 Stat. 855), was in force. By section 6, every common carrier subject to the provisions of the act (and all railroads carrying interestate freight are subject to such provisions)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donovan v. Sells Fargo & Co., No. 16961.
...inexorably to the rate published, regardless of knowledge, assent, or even misrepresentation. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98 [15 Sup. Ct. 802, 39 L. Ed. 910]; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242 [26 Sup. Ct. 628, 50 L. Ed. 1011]; Melody v. Great Norther......
-
Maislin Industries Inc v. Primary Steel, Inc, No. 89-624
...S.Ct. at 354; Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U.S. 242, 245, 26 S.Ct. 628, 630, 50 L.Ed. 1011 (1906); Gulf, C. & S.F.R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98, 101, 15 S.Ct. 802, 803, 39 L.Ed. 910 (1895). The duty to file rates with the Commission, see § 10762, and the obligation to charge only tho......
-
Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 448; [1] Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 209, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23; Gulf, Colorado, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98, 15 Sup.Ct. 802, 39 L.Ed. 910; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co., 167 U.S. 633, 642, 17 Sup.Ct. 986, 42 L.Ed. 306; State......
-
First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison, Civil Action No. 3895 O'C.
...Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 1899, 173 U.S. 285, 297, 19 S.Ct. 465, 43 L.Ed. 702. See also Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 1895, 158 U.S. 98, 104, 15 S.Ct. 802, 39 L.Ed. 910; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harris, 1914, 234 U.S. 412, 34 S.Ct. 790, 58 L.Ed. 1377, L.R.A. 1915E, 942; Eri......
-
Donovan v. Sells Fargo & Co., No. 16961.
...inexorably to the rate published, regardless of knowledge, assent, or even misrepresentation. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98 [15 Sup. Ct. 802, 39 L. Ed. 910]; Texas & Pacific Railway v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242 [26 Sup. Ct. 628, 50 L. Ed. 1011]; Melody v. Great Norther......
-
Shepard v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 448; [1] Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 209, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23; Gulf, Colorado, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98, 15 Sup.Ct. 802, 39 L.Ed. 910; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co., 167 U.S. 633, 642, 17 Sup.Ct. 986, 42 L.Ed. 306; State......
-
First Nat. Ben. Soc. v. Garrison, Civil Action No. 3895 O'C.
...Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Ohio, 1899, 173 U.S. 285, 297, 19 S.Ct. 465, 43 L.Ed. 702. See also Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 1895, 158 U.S. 98, 104, 15 S.Ct. 802, 39 L.Ed. 910; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Harris, 1914, 234 U.S. 412, 34 S.Ct. 790, 58 L.Ed. 1377, L.R.A. 1915E, 942; Eri......
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hughes, 6,817.
...than to defeat or impair a statute passed by Congress in pursuance of the powers granted to it. ' [1] In Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.S. 98, 104, 15 Sup.Ct. 802, 804 (39 L.Ed. 910), a Texas statute making it unlawful for a railroad company to charge a greater sum for transporting fr......