McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 August 1918 |
| Citation | 252 F. 664 |
| Parties | McCAULL-DINSMORE CO. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Cobb Wheelwright & Dille, of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
F. W Root, of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
I hereby find the following facts established by the agreed written statement of facts and by the admissions of the parties:
Findings of Fact.
(1) That the plaintiff was and is a corporation, duly created organized, and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota, and a citizen of said state, having its principal place of business in the city of Minneapolis, county of Hennepin, state of Minnesota, and is a resident and inhabitant of said Fourth division.
(2) That the defendant was and is a railway corporation of the state of Wisconsin and a citizen thereof, and was and is a common carrier of freight and passengers for hire in and between the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota North Dakota, Montana, Iowa, and Nebraska.
(3) That at Three Forks, Mont., a station on the line of defendant, on the 17th day of November, 1915, there was delivered to the defendant, in Canadian Pacific car No. 210470, by the Three Valley Co-operative Association, 87,840 pounds, or 1,464 bushels, of No. 2 hard Montana wheat, consigned and for transportation to the McCaull-Dinsmore Company, for account of the McCaull-Dinsmore Company, Omaha, Neb., and that said wheat was the property of the plaintiff.
(4) That at the time of such delivery of said wheat to the defendant there was entered into between the consignor thereof and the defendant a certain contract for the purpose of such receipt, transportation, and delivery, which said contract is commonly known and referred to as a 'uniform bill of lading.'
(5) That said contract was a part of the published tariffs, legally published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. That said tariffs provided, among other things, a rate of transportation based on and controlled by said bill of lading or contract; and said tariff further provided that. in cases where the shipper was not agreeable to shipping under the terms of said contract or bill of lading, then a higher rate of transportation was provided by said tariffs.
(6) That said contract or bill of lading provided, among other things, as follows: 'The amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier is liable shall be computed on the basis of the value of the property at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, including freight charges, if paid.'
(7) That on or about the 5th day of December, 1915, said car and contents were wrecked in transit, and the said wheat became so mixed and commingled with other wheat of other persons as to cause its identity to be lost, and no part of said grain was ever transported to destination.
(8) That ten days was a reasonable time for the transportation of said car of grain from said Three Forks to said Omaha. That the value of said wheat at the place and time of shipment was 82 cents per bushel. That the fair market value of said wheat at destination, at the time when it should have been there delivered to the plaintiff, with interest, less lawful freight charges, is the sum of $1,422.11, of which the plaintiff received from the defendant, on March 8, 1916, the sum of $1,200.48.
(9) That after the rate was fixed by the Interstate Commerce Commission the freight charges received by the defendant on said shipment of grain were based upon the weight of the grain shipped without regard to value. That the defendant contends that, by virtue of said provision in said bill of lading, it is liable only for the value of said wheat at the place and time of shipment. That the plaintiff contends that the defendant is liable for the market value of the wheat at destination at the time when it should have been there delivered to the plaintiff, less lawful freight charges. That this is a suit and proceeding arising under the act of Congress of February 4, 1887 (24 Stat. 379, c. 104), and the several acts amendatory thereof, including the so-called 'Cummins Amendment' of March 4, 1915 (Act March 4 1915, c. 176, 38...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Railway Express Co. v. Galt
... ... will be in this court, was based on a decision of the Federal ... Court. In the case of McCaull-Dinsmore v. Chicago, ... Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company, [128 Miss. 84] 251 ... F. 664, this case was appealed by the railroad company after ... ...
-
Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. H. Rouw Co.
...law, but should we depart from the rule there announced, we would disturb the law of long standing. In McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., D.C., 252 F. 664, affirmed in 8 Cir., 260 F. 835, 836, the question was whether a bill of lading which fixed value at the point of ori......
-
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co
... ... 176, Act March 4, ... 1915, 38 Stat. at L. 1196, Comp. Stat., sec. 8604a, 4 Fed ... Stat. Anno. (2 Ed.), p. 506; McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago, ... etc., R. Co., 253 U.S. 97, 64 L.Ed. 801 ... The ... measure of damages for failure of a common carrier to deliver ... ...
-
Brown Coal Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
...facts in the instant case? Both parties to this action place reliance upon the case of McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 252 F. 664. This action was brought in the district court of the United States for the district of Minnesota. In said action it appeared that the plain......