Mellon v. Stockton & Lampkin
| Decision Date | 04 September 1930 |
| Parties | Andrew W. Mellon, Director-General of Railroads and Agent of United States, Appellant, v. Stockton & Lampkin, A Partnership Composed of J. H. Lampkin and E. B. Stockton |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Transferred from Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Transferred to Kansas City Court of Appeals.
J F. Green, W. E. Suddath and Grover, Tipton & Graves for appellant.
M D. Aber for respondents.
This action was brought in the Circuit Court of Johnson County on August 7, 1920, by John Barton Payne, then Director-General of Railroads, against respondents, to recover a balance of $ 218.74 claimed to be due from respondents for freight on certain shipments of coal. Later James C. Davis became Director-General of Railroads and was substituted as party plaintiff. Still later, Andrew W. Mellon succeeded Davis in said office, and was substituted as plaintiff herein. The cause was tried on an agreed statement of facts and resulted in a judgment for defendants. On application of plaintiff an appeal was granted to the Kansas City Court of Appeals, and that court transferred the cause to this court on the ground that a constitutional question was involved.
The substance of the agreed statement upon which the case was tried, is as follows:
1. That at the times in question the United States was at war with the German Empire, and as a war measure the Government took over the operation of the railroads and assumed control of the fuel supply of the United States. The railroads were operated by a Director-General of Railroads and the fuel supply was controlled by a United States Fuel Administrator.
2. That respondents, as partners, were engaged in the business of selling coal at retail in Warrensburg, Missouri. Coal was shipped to them from Myrick and Wellington, Missouri, to Warrensburg, Missouri, over the Missouri Pacific Railroad, then operated by the United States Government through its Director-General of Railroads.
3. That the tariff rate promulgated and established by the Interstate Commerce Commission to apply to said shipments of coal was $ 1.40 per ton, but plaintiff charged and defendants paid only $ 1.10 per ton.
4. That the United States Railroad Administration informed the United States Fuel Administration that $ 1.10 was the correct and proper freight rate to be charged for the shipment of said coal.
5. That the United States Fuel Administrator fixed the price which defendants should pay for said coal at the mines at $ 3.80 per ton, required them to pay the $ 1.10 per ton freight which the Railroad Administration had said was the proper charge, fixed $ 1.50 per ton as the amount defendants should receive for handling the coal, and required them to sell it at $ 6.40 per ton; that the retail price was fixed at $ 6.40 per ton under the belief that $ 1.10 per ton was the lawful freight rate.
6. That the shipments of coal were twenty-two and one-half tons short; that defendants paid freight on said shortage in the sum of $ 24.75; that if such coal was shipped it was lost by plaintiff's failure to deliver it to defendants, who had paid $ 85.50 for it; that defendants bought and sold the coal at prices fixed by the Fuel Administrator and on account of said shortage and the high cost of labor required to handle said coal, defendants made no profit.
7. That the difference in the amount of freight on the coal shipped, figured at $ 1.10 per ton instead of $ 1.40 as fixed by the Interstate Commerce Commission would be $ 212.35, and if plaintiff is entitled to recover the recovery should be $ 212.35 plus $ 6.39 war tax, or a total of $ 218.74.
As the amount in dispute does not exceed $ 7500, we do not have jurisdiction, unless a constitutional question is involved in the case.
Defendants plead in their answer that relying upon the representations of the Government of the United States through its representatives that they should have the sum of $ 1.50 per ton for handling said coal, they expended time and money in the prosecution of said business. The answer alleges:
"That to charge the defendants now the rate of freight sought to be imposed by this proceeding would operate to take from them all of the amounts made and received by them pursuant to the offers and representations so made, and amount to taking from the defendants their property, being their time, energy efforts, the use of their private funds and property, without due process of law, and without just compensation, and to be a taking of their private property for public use without just compensation, being in violation of Articles V and XIV of the Constitution of the United States; that it would take from the defendants the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; take from them their private...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smith v. Southern Illinois & Missouri Bridge Co.
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
... ... 38; Sonken-Galamba ... Corp. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 225 Mo.App. 1066, 40 S.W.2d ... 529; Mellon v. Stockton & Lamkin, 326 Mo. 129, 30 ... S.W.2d 974; McGrew v. Mo. Pac. Ry., 177 Mo. 533, 76 ... prevent recovery of unlawful overcharges. [ Mellon v ... Stockton & Lampkin, 326 Mo. 129, 30 S.W.2d 974, and ... cases cited.] However, there is considerable difference ... ...
-
Massey-Harris Harvester Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
... ... 917; ... Corbett v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Association, 4 ... S.W.2d 824; Mellon v. Stockton & Lamkin, 326 Mo ... 129, 30 S.W.2d 974; Nickell v. Kansas City, St. L. & C ... ...
-
Long Island R. Co. v. Midland Valley Lumber Co.
... ... & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Fink, ... supra; L. & N. R. R. v. Central Iron & Coke Co., ... supra; Mellon v. Stockton & Lamkin, 326 Mo ... 129, 30 S.W.2d 974; Mellon v. Stockton & Lamkin, 225 ... App.), ... 190 S.W. 387; Davis v. Ford (N. C.), 137 S.E. 328; ... Mellon v. Stockton & Lampkin (Mo. App.), 35 S.W.2d ... 612; Dare v. New York Central R. Co., 20 F.2d 379; ... New York Central ... ...