Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.

CourtIowa Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBECK
Citation63 Iowa 732,18 N.W. 903
Decision Date10 April 1884
PartiesHEISERMAN AND ANOTHER v. BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY. CO.

63 Iowa 732
18 N.W. 903

HEISERMAN AND ANOTHER
v.
BURLINGTON, C. R. & N. RY.
CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 10, 1884.


Appeal from Fayette circuit court.

Action at law to recover certain sums paid by plaintiff to defendant for the transportation of grain upon defendant's railroad in excess of reasonable and just charges therefor. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal. The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion.

[18 N.W. 903]

Stoneman, Rickel & Eastman, for appellants.

J. & S. K. Tracy, for appellee.


BECK, J.

1. The petition alleges that between the twenty-eighth day of August, 1877, and the fourth day of February, 1878, the plaintiffs delivered to defendant, for transportation upon its railroad from West Union to Postville, Cedar Rapids, and Burlington, all points within this state, certain large quantities of grain to be delivered to connecting lines of railroads for transportation to Milwaukee, in the state of Wisconsin; that no other railroad than defendant's reached West Union, and plaintiffs were therefore compelled to procure transportation upon it; and that defendant charged and exacted large sums in excess of reasonable and just charges for the transportation of the grain, which plaintiffs were compelled to pay. The number of shipments, the quantity of grain in each, the charges paid, and the sums paid in each instance in excess of reasonable charges, and other particulars, are shown by an exhibit to the petition, which need not be more particularly noticed.

As defenses to the action, defendant alleges-- First, that the grain in question was transported by defendant as shipments from West Union to Milwaukee in “through” cars and upon “through” bills of lading, and that the contract for transportation pertained to commerce between the states, and that the statute of this state then in force, prescribing the charges which could be lawfully made for the transportation of property upon railroads, was therefore inapplicable and inoperative as to the transactions in question, being, as to them, in conflict with the constitution of the United States; second, that plaintiffs “knowingly, voluntarily, and willingly” paid the charges now claimed by them to be excessive and unreasonable; and, third, that the action is barred by the statute of limitations.

[18 N.W. 904]

The defendant alleges in its answer that the charges of which plaintiffs complain were reasonable, and that the contracts for the transportation of the grain were to be performed by the delivery at Milwaukee, in the state of Wisconsin. The allegations of the pleadings in the case need not be further referred to or recited.

2. The evidence, without contradiction, establishes that it was the purpose of plaintiffs to ship the grain in question to Milwaukee or other points out of this state, and that it was delivered in the cars of defendant, or in cars in use upon its road, at West Union. The contract for transportation between the parties, in each instance, was expressed by an instrument in writing, in the following form and language:

“BURLINGTON, CEDAR RAPIDS & NORTHERN RY. CO.

No. --, West Union Station, Nov. 15, 1877.

Received from Heiserman & Herriman, in apparent good order, by the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Railway Co., the following described packages, marked and numbered as per margin, subject to the conditions and regulations of the published tariff of said railway, to be transported over the line of this railway to Postville, and delivered, after payment of freight, in like good order, to C., M. & St. Paul, a company or carrier, (if the same are so forwarded beyond the line of this railway,) to be carried to the place of destination; it being expressly agreed that the responsibility of this railway shall cease at this railway's depot, at which the same are to be delivered to such carrier; but this railway guaranties that the rate of freight for the transportation of said packages from the place of shipment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...v. Me. Cent. Railroad Co., 135 Atl. 526; Louisville, etc., Railroad Co. v. Wilson, 32 N.E. 311; Heiserman v. Burlington Railroad Co., 18 N.W. 903. (5) Plaintiff is entitled to recover the charges paid by it for electricity in excess of the rates for electricity published by Union in its sch......
  • Dolezal v. City of Cedar Rapids, No. 66997
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 24, 1982
    ...of Des Moines v. City of Spencer, 126 Iowa 101, 107, 101 N.W. 643, 645 (1904); Heiserman v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway, 63 Iowa 732, 738, 18 N.W. 903, 905 II. Reinstatement of Defendants' Counterclaim. The "conclusion" in defendants' brief casually requests, wit......
  • Service v. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • February 26, 1918
    ...in the answer in that behalf do not necessarily constitute interstate commerce is shown by Heiserman v. Burlington R. Co., 63 Iowa, 732, 18 N.W. 903; United States v. Geddes, 131 F. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320; Interstate Com. Com. v. Bellaire, etc., R. Co. (C. C.) 77 F. 942; Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S......
  • Anderson v. Anderson, No. 46295.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 11, 1944
    ...at five years from the time the causes accrue. Implied contracts are in this category. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 63 Iowa 732, 18 N.W. 903. Appellants contend the obligations were each continuous and entire, and that the statute did not commence to run until the termin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., No. 34288.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1937
    ...v. Me. Cent. Railroad Co., 135 Atl. 526; Louisville, etc., Railroad Co. v. Wilson, 32 N.E. 311; Heiserman v. Burlington Railroad Co., 18 N.W. 903. (5) Plaintiff is entitled to recover the charges paid by it for electricity in excess of the rates for electricity published by Union in its sch......
  • Dolezal v. City of Cedar Rapids, No. 66997
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 24, 1982
    ...of Des Moines v. City of Spencer, 126 Iowa 101, 107, 101 N.W. 643, 645 (1904); Heiserman v. Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Northern Railway, 63 Iowa 732, 738, 18 N.W. 903, 905 II. Reinstatement of Defendants' Counterclaim. The "conclusion" in defendants' brief casually requests, wit......
  • Service v. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • February 26, 1918
    ...in the answer in that behalf do not necessarily constitute interstate commerce is shown by Heiserman v. Burlington R. Co., 63 Iowa, 732, 18 N.W. 903; United States v. Geddes, 131 F. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320; Interstate Com. Com. v. Bellaire, etc., R. Co. (C. C.) 77 F. 942; Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S......
  • Anderson v. Anderson, No. 46295.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 11, 1944
    ...at five years from the time the causes accrue. Implied contracts are in this category. Heiserman v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 63 Iowa 732, 18 N.W. 903. Appellants contend the obligations were each continuous and entire, and that the statute did not commence to run until the termin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT