Hackworth v. Missouri Southern Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1921
• Parties: NANNIE HACKWORTH, Executrix of Will of B. F. HACKWORTH, v. MISSOURI SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

227 S.W. 1032

286 Mo. 282

NANNIE HACKWORTH, Executrix of Will of B. F. HACKWORTH, v. MISSOURI SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

January 29, 1921

Appeal from Reynolds Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. M. Dearing, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

J. B Daniel and Arthur T. Brewster for appellant.

(1) If the rates prescribed by Sec. 3241, R. S. 1909, for the transportation of railroad ties would not yield to defendant a substantial return upon that portion of the fair value of the property of defendant used in said service, which is properly assignable to that service, that provision of said statute is as to defendant void, irrespective of the return defendant could earn from all of its business, or from all of its intrastate business. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. North Dakota, 236 U.S. 585; Ry. Co. v. West Virginia, 236 U.S 605.

Stuart L. Clark for respondent.

(1) The rates established by Sec. 3241, R. S. 1909, do not constitute a burden upon interstate commerce, nor any interference therewith. Railroad Co. v. Garrett, 231 U.S. 298, 58 L.Ed. 229; Ferry Co. v. Freeholders, 234 U.S. 317 58 L.Ed. 1330; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. 352, 57 L.Ed. 1511; Knott v. Railroad Co., 230 U.S. 474, 57 L.Ed. 1571; Allen v. Railroad Co., 230 U.S. 553, 57 L.Ed. 1625; Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Campbell, 230 U.S 525, 57 L.Ed. 1604; Ry. Co. v. Conley, 230 U.S. 513, 57 L.Ed. 1597; Ry. Co. v. Grimwood, 220 U.S. 565, 50 L.Ed. 596; Bridge Co. v. Kentucky, 154 U.S. 204, 38 L.Ed. 962. (2) Where a shipper has been compelled to pay an excessive charge to a common carrier for the transportation of freight, he may recover the excess in a proper action. White v. Delano, 270 Mo. 16, 191 S.W. 1012; State ex rel. v. Ry. Co., 265 Mo. 346, 178 S.W. 129, L. R. A. 1916C, 390; Heiserman v. Ry. Co., 63 Iowa 732, 18 N.W. 903; Graham v. Ry. Co., 53 Wis. 473, 10 N.W. 609; Ry. Co. v. Maddox, 146 Ala. 539; Land Co. v. Railroad Co., 133 S.W. 1119; Reagan v. Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 397, 38 L.Ed. 1014; Railway Co. v. Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426, 51 L.Ed. 553; 2 Wyman on Public Service Corp., sec. 1401; 2 Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 805; 4 Elliott on Railroads, sec. 1564; 6 Cyc. 498. (3) The overcharges in this case may be recovered in an action for money had and received. That action lies where one person has received money belonging to another which in equity and good conscience he ought to refund to the owner. It lies for money paid by mistake; or for money obtained through imposition, express or implied; or through an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff's situation, contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under those circumstances. Moses v. McFerlan, 2 Burrow, 1005; Third Nat. Bank v. Savings Bank, 244 Mo. 554, 149 S.W. 495; Banking Co. v. Comm. Co., 195 Mo. 262, 94 S.W. 527; Henderson v. Koenig, 192 Mo. 690, 91 S.W. 88; Johnson-Brinkman Co. v. Bank, 116 Mo. 558, 22 S.W. 813; Robbins v. Ins. Co., 12 Mo. 380; Sanitary Co. v. Reed, 179 Mo.App. 164, 161 S.W. 315; Lumber Co. v. Dallas, 165 Mo.App. 49, 146 S.W. 95; Roberts v. Neale, 134 Mo.App. 612, 114 S.W. 1120; Richardson v. Drug Co., 92 Mo.App. 515; Deal v. Bank, 79 Mo.App. 262; Dobson v. Winner, 26 Mo.App. 329; Taylor v. Rust, 198 S.W. 194; Whitecotton v. Wilson, 197 S.W. 168; Batson v. Bank, 178 Ala. 490, 60 So. 313; Bank v. Martin, 110 Ark. 578, 163 S.W. 795; Gray v. Ellins, 164 Cal. 481, 129 P. 795; Gibson v. Realty Co., 82 Conn. 383, 73 A. 765; Savings Bank v. Dismukes, 107 Ga. 212, 33 S.E. 175; Bank v. Gatton, 172 Ill. 525, 50 N.E. 121; Schmidt v. Schmidt, 216 Mass. 572, 104 N.E. 474; Bearce v. Fahrnow, 109 Mich. 315, 67 N.W. 318; Thiele v. Carey, 85 Neb. 454, 123 N.W. 442; Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400; Humbird v. Davis, 210 Pa. St. 311; Railway Co. v. Burke, 102 Va. 642; Noble v. Libby, 144 Wis. 632, 129 N.W. 791; Peters v. Railroad Co., 42 Ohio St. 275; Scott v. Jackson, 147 S.W. (Tex. Civ. App.) 336; Pardee v. County, 118 P. 122; Bank v. Hudson, 74 Ore. 199, 144 P. 494; Brooks v. Bank, 26 Okla. 56, 110 P. 46; Williams v. Smith, 29 R. I. 562; Bahsen v. Clements, 79 N.C. 556; Griffin v. Griffin, 20 S.C. 486; Babcock v. Granville, 44 Vt. 325; Jackson v. White, 194 F. 677; Lumber Co. v. Bank, 206 F. 41, 124 C. C. A. 175; United States v. Engineering Co., 215 F. 209; Nash v. Towne, 5 Wall. 689, 18 L.Ed. 527. (4) The right of action given a shipper to recover treble damages under Sec. 3248, R. S. 1909, does not apply to an action to recover for overcharges collected in excess of the rates provided in Section 3241. Section 3248, was enacted in 1875 and was Section 5 of the Act of March 29, 1875, Laws 1875, pp. 112-119, and the remedy therein provided could apply only to violations of the act of which it formed a part. Paddock v. Ry. Co., 155 Mo. 524, 56 S.W. 453; Strottman v. Ry. Co., 211 Mo. 257, 109 S.W. 769; Timpson v. Coal Co., 220 Mo. 591, 119 S.W. 565; Miller v. Boulware, 267 Mo. 487, 184 S.W. 1148; Cobb v. Houston, 117 Mo.App. 651, 94 S.W. 299; McGrew v. Ry. Co., 87 Mo.App. 254. The penalty provided for violations of Section 3241 is found in Section 3242, which was Section 1194a of the Act of March 19, 1907, Laws 1907, pp. 172, 173, and is the only penalty which can be recovered for violations of Section 3241 and no part of that penalty can go to the shipper, but all of it goes to the school fund in the county where the case is tried. If the contention of counsel for appellant be sound, a shipper is left without any remedy to recover excessive charges collected by a railroad company. (5) Even if the provisions of Section 3248 apply to violations of Section 3241, the remedy there given is cumulative and not exclusive. Where the common law gives a remedy and another remedy is given by statute which enlarges the common law remedy, such remedy is cumulative and the plaintiff may pursue either the common law or statutory remedy at his election. Calvert v. Railroad Co., 34 Mo. 243, 38 Mo. 467; Iba v. Railroad Co., 45 Mo. 474; Hill v. Ry. Co., 121 Mo. 477, 26 S.W. 576; Wyckhoff v. Southern Hotel Co., 24 Mo.App. 389; Hill v. Ry. Co., 49 Mo.App. 520; Kingsland v. Forest, 18 Ala. 519, 52 Am. Dec. 232; Joffa v. Fidelity Co., 7 Ala.App. 206; Wells v. Steele, 31 Ark. 215; Gilbert v. Peck, 162 Cal. 54, 121 P. 215; Milling Co. v. Mitchell, 26 Colo. 284, 58 P. 28; Ry. Co. v. Kennedy, 12 Conn. 299; Randel v. Shoemaker, 1 Harr. (Del.) 565; Futch v. Adams, 47 Fla. 257; Doe v. Ry. Co., 1 Ga. 524; Ry. Co. v. Chicago, 148 Ill. 141, 35 N.E. 881; Barnett v. Van Meter, 7 Ind.App. 45; Board of Education v. Scovill, 13 Kan. 17; Richardson v. Ins. Co., 28 Ky. L. 919, 92 S.W. 294; Hays v. Porter, 22 Me. 371; Turnpike Road v. State, 19 Md. 239; Pollock v. Ry. Co., 124 Mass. 158; Bellant v. Brown, 78 Mich. 294, 44 N.W. 326; State v. Cosgrave, 85 Neb. 187, 122 N.W. 885; State v. Railroad, 62 N.H. 29; Coxe v. Robbins, 9 N. J. L. 384; Plank Road Co. v. Marley, 23 N.Y. 552; Bowles v. Neeley, 28 Okla. 556, 115 P. 344; Luder v. State, 152 S.W. (Tex. Civ. App.) 220; Gibbes v. Beaufort, 20 S.C. 213; Levy v. Davis, 115 Va. 814; Atkinson v. Oil Co., 79 S. E. (W. Va.) 647; Field v. Milwaukee, 154 N. W. (Wis.) 698; Bergman v. Gay, 79 Vt. 252. (6) The testimony taken before the Public Service Commission in 1914 upon the application of appellant for an increase in all its rates does not tend to prove that the statutory rates prescribed by Section 3241 would have been confiscatory if applied to the shipments made over the line of road in 1909, 1910 and 1911 when the shipments here in controversy were made. The proceeding before the Public Service Commission was legislative in character and not judicial. Railroad Co. v. Public Service Com., 214 S.W. 379; State ex rel. v. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803, 60 P. 1068; Gulf C. Co. v. Harris, 158 Ala. 343, 48 So. 477; Shepard v. Wheeling, 30 W.Va. 479; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Myatt, 98 F. 335; Spring Valley Waterworks v. San Francisco, 124 F. 574; Ross v. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150, 57 L.Ed. 458; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Ry. Co., 218 U.S. 110, 54 L.Ed. 946; Prentiss v. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., 211 U.S. 210, 53 L.Ed. 150; Home Tel. Co. v. Los Angeles, 211 U.S. 265, 53 L.Ed. 175; San Diego Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 437, 47 L.Ed. 892; McChord v. Ry. Co., 183 U.S. 483, 46 L.Ed. 289; 2 Wyman on Public Service Corp., Sec. 1402; Reeder on Validity of Rate Regulation, sec. 34. (7) Whether the statutory rates, if charged and collected during the time the shipments in controversy were made, would have been confiscatory at that time can only be determined by the court upon an original, independent investigation of conditions at that time, and not by an examination of the proceedings had before the Public Service Commission from three to five years later. Spring Valley Waterworks Co. v. San Francisco, 124 F. 574. (8) What the appellant was entitled to receive was a reasonable return upon the fair and reasonable value of its property used and usable in the public service during the time the shipments in controversy were made. Puget Sound T. L. & P. Co. v. Reynolds, 244 U.S. 574; Ry. Co. v. Finn, 235 U.S. 607; Ry. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U.S. 298, 58 L.Ed. 229; Wood v. Railroad Co., 231 U.S. 1, 58 L.Ed. 97; Simpson v. Shepard, 230 U.S. 352, 57 L.Ed. 1511; Louisville v. Tel. Co., 225 U.S. 430, 56 L.Ed. 1151; Wilcox v. Gas Co., 212 U.S. 19, 53 L.Ed. 382; Knoxville v. Water Co., 212 U.S. 1, 53 L.Ed. 371; San Diego Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 437, 47 L.Ed. 892; San Diego Co. v. National City, 174 U.S. 739, 43 L.Ed. 1154; Tel .Co. v. Carthage, 235 Mo. 644, 139 S.W. 547; Tel. Co. v. Westenhaver, 29 Okla. 429, 148 P. 354; G. & E. Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 144 Iowa 426, 120 N.W. 966; State ex rel. v. Railroad Co., 80 Minn. 191, 83 N.W. 60; Steenerson v. Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 353, 72 N.W. 713; Griffin v. Water Co., 122 N.C. 211; Kennebec Water Dist. v....