Mountain Lumber Co. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 08 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 194.,194. |
| Citation | 11 F.2d 219 |
| Parties | MOUNTAIN LUMBER CO. et al. v. DAVIS, Director General of Railroads, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
George E. Nelson, of New York City, and Arthur B. Hayes, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Walter C. Noyes, of New York City (George H. Richards and Robert B. Cumming, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
By bill in equity several separate consignees, who are likewise shippers, seek an accounting from the Director General of Railroads in respect to alleged overpayment of freight charges on numerous separate shipments of over 2,700 cars of wood pulp, made during the period of federal control, and from the Delaware & Hudson Company on numerous other similar separate shipments made after the cessation of such control.
Federal jurisdiction is expressly based upon the ground that the action arises under the Interstate Commerce Act (Comp. St. § 8563 et seq.) and also upon diversity of citizenship; equity jurisdiction upon the need of accounting, inadequacy of legal remedy, and avoidance of a multiplicity of suits, since but one issue, it is alleged, is presented for determination.
All of the shipments are charged to have been made from points in Canada to points in New York on through bills of lading and on through rates, contained in tariffs issued by the Canadian carriers and filed with the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and with the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States; that this transportation charge was participated in by the carriers of each country; that part of this transportation service was rendered by the Canadian carriers in Canada, and part by defendants in New York, but that the basis of division of the charges was unknown to plaintiffs.
It is further charged that payment for the entire service as to each shipment during each of the two periods was made to the defendants, respectively, as to its period of operation in money of the United States in response to a demand therefor from the delivering carrier; that Canadian money during both periods had a depreciated value as compared to United States money of from 3 per cent. to 18 per cent.; that for the service within Canada the Canadian carriers could demand only the published charges in Canadian money; that by payment to defendants of the entire charges in United States money, plaintiff paid more, and in demanding United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DuPont Glore Forgan Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
...without notice of the payor's claim. See, e.g., Hooper v. Robinson, 98 U.S. 528, 540-41, 25 L.Ed. 219 (1878); Mountain Lumber Co. v. Davis, 11 F.2d 219, 221 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 271 U.S. 674, 46 S.Ct. 488, 70 L.Ed. 1145 (1926); Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 339, comment f (1958). 22......
-
United States v. Bethke
...of Minneapolis, Minn., 8 Cir., 1931, 52 F.2d 382, 82 A.L.R. 297; Mountain Lumber Co. v. Davis, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1925, 9 F.2d 478, affirmed, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 219, certiorari denied 271 U.S. 674, 46 S.Ct. 488, 70 L.Ed. 1145; Insurance Co. of North America v. Fourth Nat. Bank of Atlanta, D.C.N.D.Ga.......
-
Layne Christensen Co. v. Zurich Canada
...the money is payable is presumed to be intended by the parties. See Mountain Lumber Co. v. Davis, 9 F.2d 478, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1925),affd11 F.2d 219 (2d Cir.),cert. denied 271 U.S. 674 (1926); see also Weiss v. State Life Ins. Co., 4 D.L.R. 5 (Can. 1935) (recognizing presumption but finding it......
-
Liebeskind v. Mexican Light & Power Co.
...York & Pennsylvania Co. v. Davis, D.C.W.D.N.Y., 8 F.2d 662; Mountain Lumber Co. v. Davis, D.C., 9 F.2d 478, affirmed on other grounds, 2 Cir., 11 F.2d 219; Les Commissaires D'Ecole, etc., v. La Societe Des Artisans, etc., 33 K.B. (Quebec) 448; La Corporation Des Obligations Municipales v. L......