Louisville Water Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Decision Date15 April 1936
Docket NumberNo. 1583.,1583.
Citation14 F. Supp. 301
PartiesLOUISVILLE WATER CO. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky

Thomas C. Mapother, of Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.

Trabue, Doolan, Helm & Helm, of Louisville, Ky., for defendant.

HAMILTON, District Judge.

The defendant is a railroad company operating a line of road from the Western Kentucky coal fields to Louisville, Ky. East of its terminals on the line of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company the plaintiff has a water filtration plant connecting with that road by switch.

From and including December 29, 1919, to and including October 29, 1930, the plaintiff shipped f. o. b. at point of origin 1,314 cars of coal from Western Kentucky over defendant's lines on bills of lading consigned to "Louisville Water Works, destination Louisville, route Crescent Hill Pumping Plant, L. & N. delivery." The defendant had on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Railroad Commission of the commonwealth of Kentucky, during all the time mentioned, regularly published tariffs wherein it agreed to absorb all switching charges at Louisville, Ky., lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission on hard coal, soft coal, or coke to all switches, tracks, warehouses, and industries reached by and (or) connecting with the tracks of other connecting and switching railroads, provided such traffic paid the defendant a freight charge other than a switching charge.

The defendant had no switching facilities from its terminal in the city of Louisville to Crescent Hill; the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company having the only railroad connections to that point. The latter road had on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Railroad Commission of the commonwealth of Kentucky switching charge tariffs designating territories. One of these, zone 7, was "Locations on the Louisville, Cincinnati, and Lexington Division, East of East Louisville Station." The charge in this zone for shipments received from the defendant by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company was $3.60 a car. The plant of the plaintiff was located within the corporate limits of the city of Louisville and east of the East Louisville station of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Said railroad company, during the times herein mentioned, had also on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Railroad Commission of the commonwealth of Kentucky a line-haul tariff for freight moving from its Louisville station to Crescent Hill. From August 28, 1919, to August 26, 1926, its charge was $5 per car; from the latter date to July 1, 1922, $6.50 per car; and from that time to December 27, 1927, $5.85 per car; and then until October 29, 1930, $3 per car on coal traveling solely over its lines, and on coal received from other roads, $5.85 per car.

From February 7, 1924, to March 3, 1928, the defendant had on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Railroad Commission for the commonwealth of Kentucky a tariff in which it agreed to absorb $2.85 per car of line-haul charges on shipments of carloads of coal forwarded from mines on its lines when delivered to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company at Louisville, Ky., and destined to Bear Grass and Water Works, Ky. On March 3, 1928, it amended this tariff by adding thereto the words "Crescent Hill, Kentucky."

From July 11, 1919, to November 13, 1920, the plaintiff voluntarily paid to the defendant, in addition to the line-haul charge from the mines to Louisville, Ky., $5 per car, which was listed on the freight bill as "switching charges"; from November 13, 1920, to September 6, 1922, $6.50 per car; from September 6, 1922, to February 15, 1924, $5.85 per car; from February 15, 1924, to October 29, 1930, $3 per car. All of these charges were at the rates per car as shown on the line-haul tariff of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company from Louisville to Crescent Hill, except from the period beginning February 20, 1924, to October 29, 1930, the charge was $2.85 less than the tariff, but the defendant had agreed to absorb this sum on deliveries to that railroad company destined to Bear Grass and Water Works, Ky., and after March 3, 1928, to Crescent Hill, Ky. In making out freight bills, the defendant's employees construed its tariffs to require it to absorb $2.85 of the charge after March 6, 1924. The aggregate sum paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on account of these charges was $4,656.10, which it seeks to recover in this action, claiming the defendant erroneously collected from its switching charges which it had agreed to absorb, and that the shipments were not covered by the line haul of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company from its Louisville station to Crescent Hill, but were controlled by that road's switching tariffs.

This railroad company is the principal intercity carrier of Louisville, Ky. It had divided its terminals into ten local switching districts and filed tariffs accordingly. District 7, the one here in question, is situated in the eastern part of the city, and had for many years been defined as "locations on the L. C. & L. division east of East Louisville station." East of the latter station is a city residential area known as Crescent Hill, and included therein is the filtration plant of the defendant, and alongside the latter is a so-called prepay station of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company designated on its time tables as "Crescent Hill."

The switching tariffs contain a published list of industries within each switching district by which its limits could be determined, but, in addition to listing, the unqualified provision above quoted is also given.

For many years the filtration plant of the plaintiff was understood to be outside of the limits of district No. 7, and a "yard board" erected by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, with the sign "Yard Limit" thereon, was accepted as the eastern boundary of the District. Charges upon interstate and intrastate shipments were assessed in accordance with that understanding without question or objection by the plaintiff or any other shipper. Interstate line-haul class commodity rates were maintained to and from the Crescent Hill station as well as the East ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Bruce
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 20, 1951
    ...Great Northern Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 1928, 25 F.2d 66; Boone v. United States, 6 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 560; Louisville Water Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., D.C.W.D.Ky.1936, 14 F.Supp. 301, 304; Murray v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co., D.C.N.D.Tex.1945, 59 F.Supp. An interstate tariff rate such as Item......
  • Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co. v. ERMAN-HOWELL DIVISION
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 9, 1968
    ...(E.D.Mo.1963); Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. United States, 242 F.Supp. 890 (E.D.Pa.1965). The case of Louisville Water Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 14 F.Supp. 301 (W.D.Ky.1936), was concerned with the difference between the meanings of the words, "switching" and "transportation." In t......
  • Jones Motor Co., Inc., B-127061
    • United States
    • Comptroller General of the United States
    • April 20, 1956
    ...co., 52 F.2d 94; van dusen harrington Co.V. Northern pacific railway, 32 F.2d 466; louisville water Co.V. Illinois central railroad co., 14 F.Supp. 301. Also, tariffs supposed to be expressed in plain terms (swift and Co.V. United States, 255 F. 291; A. D. Cook Inc., v. Baltimore and Ohio r......
  • Frick v. Crisp, 7731.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • April 23, 1936
    ... ... The water moves in these grooves which are V-shaped to admit of ready self-cleaning ... ...
  • 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