Hardwick Farmers Elevator Company v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
| Decision Date | 28 January 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,362 - (152) |
| Citation | 124 N.W. 819,110 Minn. 25 |
| Parties | HARDWICK FARMERS ELEVATOR COMPANY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
[Action in the district court for Rock county under Laws 1907, chapter 23 (R.L. Supp. 1909, §§ 2023-1 to 2023-13) to recover one dollar for every day's delay to furnish plaintiff with cars as demanded for the shipment of grain from the village of Hardwick to Minneapolis, Chicago or Davenport, Iowa, during the months of September and October 1907, and $50 for an attorney's fee for bringing the action. Defendant's answer, which set forth the character of the movement of the grain and alleged that this was, in consequence, interstate commerce, as a defense complete in itself, was demurred to, and the court sustained the demurrer.
In its amended answer the defendant set up that at the times mentioned in the complaint there was upon defendant's lines and elsewhere an unusual and unprecedented congestion of traffic which defendant could not have foreseen, which it was beyond its power to relieve. It alleged that it provided plaintiff with its full proportion of cars and at the earliest possible moment practicable; that to have sooner supplied them would have discriminated against other interstate traffic and to have done this would have violated the rules and order of the interstate commerce commission that all traffic moved by defendant from Hardwick, Minnesota to Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as to the other points named, must be carried by it over its lines through Iowa as well as Minnesota; and Laws 1907, chapter 23, did not relate to such consignments as commerce between the states and cannot regulate such traffic, because so to do would violate the exclusive powers granted to congress by the federal constitution.
The case was tried before P. E. Brown, J., who denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case because the statute is invalid as to interstate shipments. He submitted to the jury the question whether it was within the power of defendant to have furnished the cars when demanded. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $268. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict, defendant appealed. Affirmed.]
This was an action brought by plaintiff and respondent elevator company against defendant and appellant railroad company under the so-called reciprocal demurrage law to recover one dollar a day for every day on which defendant failed at specified times to furnish cars to plaintiff for the movement of grain from a point in Minnesota to other points in Minnesota and to points in other states. From judgment entered upon the verdict in favor of plaintiff this appeal was taken. Other cases involving the validity of the same law were submitted at the same time. All material relevant points made by various counsel are intended to be included in the opinion which follows.
So far as here involved, chapter 23 is as follows:
Reciprocal Demurrage Act of 1907 -- Action Under Act -- Evidence Not Reviewed.
Chapter 23, Laws 1907, imposed the duty upon any railroad company to furnish suitable cars to all persons applying therefor in good faith, to provide and keep suitable facilities for handling the same, to receive and transport empty or loaded cars furnished by any connecting road, to furnish to the shipper the number of cars applied for in writing within forty-eight hours at terminal points and seventy-two hours at intermediate points from the receipt of the application. Section 11 provided: "The period during which the movement of freight or furnishing cars is suspended on account of strikes, public calamities, accident, or any cause not within the power of the railroad company to prevent, or during which the loading or unloading of freight by shipper or consignee is delayed by reason of inclement weather which would make loading or unloading impracticable, or any cause not in the power of said shipper or consignees to prevent, shall be added to the free time allowed in this act and counted as additional free time." In addition to damages the carrier was made responsible to the shipper for the sum of one dollar per day for every car failed to be furnished, together with reasonable attorney's fees for bringing such suit, to be taxed and paid as costs.
In an action brought thereunder the defendant railroad company asserted as a first defense that it was reasonably within the terms of the act, because a freight congestion had rendered it impossible for defendant to furnish cars sooner than it did. It is held: [First] that this was a question of fact, and that the verdict of the jury for plaintiff must be sustained, inasmuch as this court was not furnished with the transcript of the testimony and could not review the evidence.
Act Constitutional -- Not in Conflict with Interstate Commerce Act.
For a second defense, defendant asserted the unconstitutionality of the law as an attempted regulation of interstate commerce, and as failing to comply with the federal requirement concerning "due process of law." It is held: [Second]
1. The law by its terms applied to interstate and intrastate commerce. The merchandise transported between two points within this state, which was carried by defendant's lines through a neighboring state and back into this state, was interstate commerce.
2. The expression "any cause not in the power of said shipper or consignee to prevent" and the term "accident," which occurred in the enumerated cases excepted from the operation of the act, are to be broadly construed, and include all causes not reasonably within the power of the carrier to prevent.
3. The power of the government may be divided into four classes: (1) Those which belong exclusively to the states; (2) those which belong exclusively to the national government; (3) those which may be exercised concurrently and independently by both; (4) those which may be exercised by the states, but only until congress shall see fit to act upon the subject.
4. State laws enacted in the exercise of the police power and indirectly and remotely affecting interstate commerce, being in aid thereof and not a burden thereon, may be within the fourth class of cases and enforceable, unless superseded by some act of congress, if they are reasonable in their operation.
5. The so-called reciprocal demurrage law was designed, and in operation tended, to insure the prompt performance by the carrier of its common-law duty to furnish cars for transportation of freight, and was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial