N.H. Blitch Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Citation: 69 S.E. 16,87 S.C. 107
• Parties: N. H. BLITCH CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. (two cases). BLITCH v. SAME. COMMINS v. SAME.
• Decision Date: 11 October 1910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

69 S.E. 16

87 S.C. 107

N. H. BLITCH CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. et al. (two cases).

BLITCH v. SAME.

COMMINS v. SAME.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 11, 1910

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Geo. E Prince, Judge.

Actions by the N.H. Blitch Company, by N.H. Blitch, and by E. L Commins against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and another. From a judgment for the first-named plaintiff defendants appeal. Affirmed.

T Moultrie Mordecai and Mitchell & Smith, for appellants. Legare, Holman & Baker, for respondents.

JONES C.J.

These four cases, involving the same question, were tried together by consent. The suits were brought to recover for alleged overcharges for icing the refrigerator cars in which plaintiffs during April, May, and June, 1906, made numerous shipments of vegetables over defendant's lines from Meggetts, S. C., to various markets in other states. The complaint set out in the record is very long, and contains a statement with reference to each shipment, but it will be sufficient to state the first mentioned as typical of the others. After alleging that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company is a corporation both under the laws of South Carolina and Virginia, and that Armour Car Lines is a corporation under the laws of New Jersey and that plaintiff N.H. Blitch Co. is a domestic corporation, the complaint states:

"(5) That heretofore, on the 26th day of April, A. D. 1906, the plaintiff above named delivered to the defendants 200 crates of cabbage at Meggetts, S. C., which was received by the defendants for transportation to Boston, Mass., there to be delivered to A. F. Young & Co. for sale for the account of the plaintiff.

"(6) That the said cabbage were received by the defendants from the plaintiff, and placed in what is known as a refrigerator car, furnished by the Armour Car Lines, and was so carried to the place of destination. That the defendants, except the Armour Car Lines, received from the plaintiff the sum of $180 for freight for the carriage of said cabbage, and that defendants charged and received from the plaintiff $59 for icing said car; that the actual cost of icing said car was $26.25; and that defendants charged and received from the plaintiff the sum of $32.75 in excess of the actual cost of such icing.

"(7) That the defendants are now justly due and owing the plaintiff the sum of $32.75, the same being amount received from the plaintiff by the defendants in excess of the actual cost of icing said car."

The complaint further alleged:

"(170) That the icing charges on all of the cars above mentioned were paid at the place of destination, that the same had to be paid before the defendants would deliver the said vegetables, and was not paid voluntarily and with full knowledge of the facts. That the plaintiff alleges it was not aware at the time it paid said icing charges of the costs incurred in connection therewith. That the plaintiff was in no position to decline to pay the charges so demanded by the defendants. That plaintiff further alleges that the icing charges were unreasonable and unjust.

"(171) That the charges paid for freight on all of the cars above mentioned included the charge for the use of the refrigerator cars, and that the icing of said cars was necessary for the protection of the vegetables in the course of transportation, and the plaintiff alleges that it was under no obligation to pay more for the icing of the cars than the actual cost of same. That the defendants had no right to make any profit on the ice which was used by them for the preservation of the plaintiff's property, and that they had no right...