Louisiana Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Holly, 18,420

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the CourtPROVOSTY, J.
Citation127 La. 615,53 So. 882
PartiesLOUISIANA RY. & NAVIGATION CO. v. HOLLY
Docket Number18,420
Decision Date28 November 1910

53 So. 882

127 La. 615

LOUISIANA RY. & NAVIGATION CO.
v.
HOLLY

No. 18,420

Supreme Court of Louisiana

November 28, 1910


Rehearing Denied January 3, 1911.

Action by the Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company against K. D. Holly. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff applied for writ of certiorari. Judgment set aside, and case remanded.

Wise, Randolph & Rendall, for applicant.

W. A. Wilkinson, for respondent.

OPINION

PROVOSTY, J.

[127 La. 616] The plaintiff railroad company sues to recover of the defendant $ 97.57, being amount of undercharge on a carload of corn consigned to defendant at Coushatta, La., from Chase, Ind. T.

The facts are as follows: The defendant, a merchant at Coushatta, desiring to purchase the corn at Chase, Ind. T., for a customer, applied to the agent of the plaintiff railroad at Coushatta to ascertain what the tariff rates were between Chase and Coushatta, and was informed by the said agent that it was 23 cents per 100 pounds. This was the through rate; but the initial carrier at Chase, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad, not receiving any special routing instructions, [127 La. 617] routed the shipment to Shreveport, and from that point it was transmitted to Coushatta. The rate from Chase to Shreveport is 22 cents, and from Shreveport to Coushatta, 32 cents, making a total rate for the route over which the car was carried of 54 cents. These were the rates as fixed by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and as duly printed and posted in the stations of the said two railroads. When the car reached Coushatta, it had an undercharge notation of $ 47.50. The defendant paid this, but under protest. The defendant delivered the corn to his customer, and [53 So. 883] received payment therefor, including the $ 47.50. Two years later the claim was made for the first time by the plaintiff railroad that an additional amount was due; and, defendant refusing to pay same, the present suit was brought to enforce payment. The customer of defendant has, in the meantime, become insolvent; and, if defendant is forced to pay the amount, he loses it.

In his answer the defendant recites the foregoing facts, and denies that he ever owed anything beyond the through rate of 23 cents per 100 pounds. He pleads estoppel and the prescription of one year, and claims, in reconvention, the $ 47.50 of undercharge paid by him to the plaintiff railroad.

The trial court rejected plaintiff's demand, on two grounds: First, that, there being a through rate between the two points, the plaintiff could not claim more than this through rate; second, estoppel.

In the case of Foster-Glassel Company v. K. C. S. Ry. Co., 121 La. 1053, 46 So. 1014, there was no through rate; but that circumstance does not affect the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...v. Chicago & C. River R. Co., 257 Ill. 449, 102 N.E. 803; Ross v. Sheldon, 176 Iowa 618, 154 N.W. 499; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Morrison v. Commercial Towboat Co., 116 N.E. 499; Gaines v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 181 Mich. 376, 148 N.W. 397; Trowbridge ......
  • Mills v. Norfolk Southern R. Co, (No. 29.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 8, 1919
    ...was held In B. & O., etc., Rwy. Co. v. N. A. Box & Basket Co., 48 Ind. App. 647, 94 N. E. 906, 96 N. E. 28; La. Rwy. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 South. 882; N. Y., etc., R. Co. v. York & W. Co., 215 Mass. 36, 102 N. E. 366. An agreement of a carrier to refund a part of the rates la......
  • St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Mcnabb, Case Number: 7172
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 21, 1916
    ...Allen, 152 Ky. 145, 153 S.W. 198; N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. York & Whitney Co., 215 Mass. 36, 102 N.E. 366; La. R. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Cent. of Ga. R. v. Birmingham Sand & Brick Co., 9 Ala. App. 419, 64 So. 202; Nort. Ala. R. Co. v. Wilson Mer. Co., 9 Ala. App. 2......
  • New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. York & Whitney Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 24, 1913
    ...Melody v. Great Northern Ry., 25 S.D. 606, 127 N.W. 543, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 727; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Baltimore & O. S.W. Ry. v. New Albany Box & Basket Co., 48 Ind.App. 647, 94 N.E. 906; Chicago, R.I. & Pac. R. R. v. Hubbell, 54......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...v. Chicago & C. River R. Co., 257 Ill. 449, 102 N.E. 803; Ross v. Sheldon, 176 Iowa 618, 154 N.W. 499; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Morrison v. Commercial Towboat Co., 116 N.E. 499; Gaines v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 181 Mich. 376, 148 N.W. 397; Trowbridge ......
  • Mills v. Norfolk Southern R. Co, (No. 29.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 8, 1919
    ...was held In B. & O., etc., Rwy. Co. v. N. A. Box & Basket Co., 48 Ind. App. 647, 94 N. E. 906, 96 N. E. 28; La. Rwy. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 South. 882; N. Y., etc., R. Co. v. York & W. Co., 215 Mass. 36, 102 N. E. 366. An agreement of a carrier to refund a part of the rates la......
  • New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. York & Whitney Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • May 24, 1913
    ...Melody v. Great Northern Ry., 25 S.D. 606, 127 N.W. 543, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 727; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Baltimore & O. S.W. Ry. v. New Albany Box & Basket Co., 48 Ind.App. 647, 94 N.E. 906; Chicago, R.I. & Pac. R. R. v. Hubbell, 54......
  • Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Ahlers, (No. 243.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 28, 1925
    ...Melody v. G. N. Railway, 25 S. D. 606, 127 N. W. 543, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 727; Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. 882; Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. New Albany Box & Basket Co., 48 Ind. App. 647, 94 N. E. 906, 96 N. E. 28; Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry.......
  • 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