Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. IM Partridge Lumber Co.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota |
| Citation | 17 F.2d 657 |
| Parties | MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. I. M. PARTRIDGE LUMBER CO. |
| Decision Date | 28 July 1926 |
17 F.2d 657 (1926)
MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.
v.
I. M. PARTRIDGE LUMBER CO.
District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.
July 28, 1926.
Briggs, Weyl & Briggs, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.
Stanley B. Houck, of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
JOHN B. SANBORN, District Judge.
On April 18, 1922, the defendant shipped a car of cedar poles to itself from St. Boniface, Manitoba, to Pinconning, Mich. The car was reconsigned and delivered to the Detroit Edison Company, at Detroit, Mich., on or about May 16, 1922. The defendant paid to the plaintiff freight charges, demurrage, customs, and reconsigning charges, amounting to $386.50. It should have paid $345.63. It filed its claim for a refund, and by mistake the defendant refunded to it, on March 6, 1923, $101.08, or $60.21 more than it was entitled to. Of this amount, $4.46 was returned on September 8, 1924. The plaintiff now sues for the balance of $55.75. The suit was commenced February 19, 1926.
The question is whether the claim is barred by the limitations contained in paragraph 3 of section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended June 7, 1924 (Comp. St. § 8584), which, so far as it is pertinent, reads as follows:
"(a) All actions at law by carriers subject to this Act for recovery of their charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within three years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after."
"(e) The cause of action in respect of a shipment of property shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to accrue upon delivery or tender of delivery thereof by the carrier, and not after."
The defendant claims that this cause of action, being "in respect of a shipment," accrued in May, 1922, the date of delivery, and more than three years prior to the commencement of the action.
The plaintiff's claim is that the cause of action is not "in respect of a shipment," and did not accrue until the erroneous refund was made in March, 1923, less than three years before the commencement of suit.
At the time of delivery of the shipment, the only cause of action which accrued was one in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff for the difference between what it had paid and the lawful charges. The defendant claimed a larger refund than it was entitled to, and in March, 1923, the plaintiff allowed a refund, which was $60.21 more than it owed the defendant. It was at that time that the defendant first became indebted to the plaintiff for any amount. By the payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 35278
...(7) The action is one for money had and received and not for the recovery of freight charges. Michigan Cen. Ry. Co. v. Partridge Lbr. Co., 17 F.2d 657; Partridge Lbr. Co. v. Michigan Cen. Ry. Co., 26 F.2d 615; Galveston H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Lykes Bros., 294 F. 968. (8) It is no defense that......
-
Papetti v. Alicandro
...C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Edgewater Coal Co., 272 Ill.App. 149, 154. But see Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. T. M. Partridge Lumber Co., D.C., 17 F.2d 657, 658;T. M. Partridge Lumber Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 615, 616. If carried to the full extreme the same argument might be u......
-
Papetti v. Alicandro
...Chicago & St. Louis Railway v. Edgewater Coal Co. 272 Ill.App. 149, 154. But see Michigan Central Railroad v. T. M. Partridge Lumber Co. 17 F.2d 657, 658; S. C. 26 F.2d 615, 616. If carried to the full extreme the same argument might be urged to prevent an action by a carrier against a ship......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Fish
...Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. A line of decisions, beginning with Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. T. M. Partridge Lumber Co., D.C.Minn., 17 F.2d 657, appears to generally support respondents' position. In the Partridge case, supra, the defendant shipped a carload of cedar poles and paid th......
-
Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co., 35278
...(7) The action is one for money had and received and not for the recovery of freight charges. Michigan Cen. Ry. Co. v. Partridge Lbr. Co., 17 F.2d 657; Partridge Lbr. Co. v. Michigan Cen. Ry. Co., 26 F.2d 615; Galveston H. & S.A. Ry. Co. v. Lykes Bros., 294 F. 968. (8) It is no defense that......
-
Papetti v. Alicandro
...C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Edgewater Coal Co., 272 Ill.App. 149, 154. But see Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. T. M. Partridge Lumber Co., D.C., 17 F.2d 657, 658;T. M. Partridge Lumber Co. v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 615, 616. If carried to the full extreme the same argument might be u......
-
Papetti v. Alicandro
...Chicago & St. Louis Railway v. Edgewater Coal Co. 272 Ill.App. 149, 154. But see Michigan Central Railroad v. T. M. Partridge Lumber Co. 17 F.2d 657, 658; S. C. 26 F.2d 615, 616. If carried to the full extreme the same argument might be urged to prevent an action by a carrier against a ship......
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Fish
...Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. A line of decisions, beginning with Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. T. M. Partridge Lumber Co., D.C.Minn., 17 F.2d 657, appears to generally support respondents' position. In the Partridge case, supra, the defendant shipped a carload of cedar poles and paid th......