Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. N. T. Wax Grocery Co.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37381,37381 |
| Citation | 45 So.2d 266,208 Miss. 675 |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENT R. CO. v. N. T. WAX GROCERY CO. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
D. W. Houston, Sr. & Jr., Aberdeen, Lucius E. Burch, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.
Thomas F. Paine, Aberdeen, for appellee.
Suit was filed against appellee by the Railroad Company for freight and demurrage charges, and from a judgment for the defendant this appeal is taken.
Shipment was made by one Hector from Granger, Oregon, of six hundred bags of mixed vetch seed to appellee. A uniform order-notify bill of lading was issued by the agent of the Southern Pacific Railroad at Albany, Oregon. The proposed route was via Memphis to Canton, Mississippi, at which a stop-over for partial unloading was indicated, thence to final destination at Amory, Mississippi.
The shipment was, however, shipped from Memphis direct to Amory over the Frisco Railroad, arriving about the same time that the bill of lading reached a local bank. Appellee refused to take up the bill of lading and unload the shipment on the ground that the terms of the bill of lading had not been complied with by allowing stop-over at Canton.
The agent of the Frisco Railroad at Amory then told the appellee that if he would take up the bill of lading and pay the freight charges shown thereon he would arrange for shipment of that part of the shipment destined for Canton. This was done, but in the meantime demurrage charges had accrued at Amory amounting to $37.40. Freight charges to Canton and federal tax raised the total charges made against appellant by the connecting carriers to $94.56, the amount sued for.
The summary of appellee's contentions is that he had paid all that the bill of lading called for and that what was done was only that originally contemplated by it. It argues that he did not authorize the shipment to Canton as a new contract and received no new bill of lading therefor, and that what appellant did was in an effort to correct an error for which he was not responsible. On its face this contention has much of reason to commend it.
We are, however, brought face to face with the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, Sec. 6(7), 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 6(7), which forbids that any carrier shall: 'charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time; * * *.'
The foregoing provision is designed to prevent any discrimination against or in favor of any consignee. It is now well established by ample authority that it is immaterial whether a mistake in tariff charges is made or rates misquoted. There is no estoppel against the carrier. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. F. A. Hulett & Son, 159 Miss. 333, 131 So. 814. Nor were the demurrage charges waived by the carrier whose delay in getting final instructions was caused by the consignee who had taken up the bill of lading only upon the undertaking that the car would be taken on to Canton. Lexington Compress and Oil Mill Company v. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co., 131 Miss. 49, 95 So. 92; Davis v. Timmonsville Oil Company, 4 Cir., 285 F. 470.
It is also immaterial on the issue of liability that the original bill of lading erroneously provided stop-over for unloading at Canton. It was, as stated, an ordernotify form, under which partial unloading may not be allowed. Reference to these conditions is made to certain tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, identified without question as Item 670SFA Tariff 236P, and I.C.C. No. 913.
Regardless of the understanding or...
To continue reading
Request your trial