Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Ohio Valley Tie Company

• Decision Date: 18 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 66,66
• Citation: 242 U.S. 288,37 S.Ct. 120,61 L.Ed. 305
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. OHIO VALLEY TIE COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

242 U.S. 288

37 S.Ct. 120

61 L.Ed. 305

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v OHIO VALLEY TIE COMPANY.

No. 66.

Argued November 3 and 6, 1916.

Decided December 18, 1916.

Messrs. Helm Bruce and Henry L. Stone for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Edward W. Hines, John Bryce Baskin, and J. V. Norman for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a suit brought by the defendant in error in 1911 against the railroad company to recover for injury to business and other damages alleged to have been caused by the railroad's acts. The most important feature at this stage is that the railroad maintained and collected a higher rate for crossties than it did for lumber when they were carried between states, although the State Commission required the same rate upon both for carriage within the state, and although, as the railroad knew, the Interstate Commerce Commission repeatedly had decided that the rates for crossties and lumber should be the same. It is alleged that these and the other acts complained of were done for the purpose of getting rid of the plaintiff as a competitive buyer, and, in that sense, maliciously. The plaintiff tried to meet the higher rate by directing delivery within the state of ties intended to go beyond, which attempt the defendant encountered by refusal to carry them except on its interstate tariff, and hampered the plaintiff by declining to let its cars leave its road, by deliveries at points requiring a haul by wagon, and so forth; and, in short, it may be assumed that the railroad did other acts to further the alleged end, not necessary to be stated here.

Shortly before bringing this suit the plaintiff complained to the Interstate Commerce Commission in respect of charges collected upon ninety-one carloads of ties, and in 1912 obtained an order that the railroad pay to it $6,198 as reparation for unreasonable rates, and establish a rate for ties not to exceed its contemporaneous one for lumber of the same kind of wood. This order was pleaded by an amendment to the petition, and it appeared at the trial that the sum awarded had been paid. As the damage alleged was attributed mainly to the publication and exaction of excessive charges, the defendant insisted at the trial and before the court of appeals upon its rights under the Act to Regulate Commerce, and those rights were passed upon by the court, so that there is no doubt of the jurisdiction here, although some questions were raised that we think it unnecessary to discuss.

The defendant contended and asked for a ruling that in this action no damages could be allowed 'on account of defendant's having charged to and collected from plaintiff unreasonable rates of freight for the carriage of interstate shipments of crossties' and other rulings to similar effect. It also asked an instruction that, under the Act to Regulate Commerce, it was required to collect the rates fixed by its tariff on file and in effect. These requests were refused, and the jury were told that if they believed that the rates found by the Interstate Commerce Commission to be unreasonable were wilfully and maliciously maintained with intent to injure the plaintiff's business, and that the defendant knew them...