Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. IM Partridge Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 28 July 1926 |
Citation | 17 F.2d 657 |
Parties | MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO. v. I. M. PARTRIDGE LUMBER CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Briggs, Weyl & Briggs, of St. Paul, Minn., for plaintiff.
Stanley B. Houck, of Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
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:
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 $4.46 in September, 1924, it reduced its indebtedness to the amount now in controversy.
The defendant is trying to convert...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co.
... ... for the recovery of freight charges. Michigan Cen. Ry ... Co. v. Partridge Lbr. Co., 17 F.2d 657; Partridge ... in the sum of $ 20,142.57, with six per cent interest ... Between April 4 and April 19, 1929, the railroad paid to ... the same time." [ Lumber Co. v. Kreeger, 52 ... Mo.App. 418 at 421; Union Savings Assn. v ... ...
-
Papetti v. Alicandro
...88 F.2d 459, 462;Cleveland, 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 ......
-
Papetti v. Alicandro
... ... 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 ... ...
-
Southern Pac. Co. v. Fish
...charges under the Interstate 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 carlo......