Pennsylvania Co v. Kittaning Iron Steel Mfg Co

Citation253 U.S. 319,64 L.Ed. 928,40 S.Ct. 532
Decision Date01 June 1920
Docket NumberNo. 301,301
PartiesPENNSYLVANIA R. CO. v. KITTANING IRON & STEEL MFG. CO
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. Henry Wolf Bikle, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Frederic D. McKenney and J. S. Flannery, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. R. L. Ralston, of Kittaning, Pa., for respondent.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Uniform Demurrage Code discussed in Swift & Company v. Hocking Valley Railway Company, 243 U. S. 281, 283, 37 Sup. Ct. 287, 61 L. Ed. 722, was duly published as a part of the freight tariffs of the Pennsylvania Railroad prior to November 1, 1912. From time to time during the months of December, 1912, and February and March, 1913, the Kittaning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Company received from the railroad an aggregate of 227 cars of iron ore, all interstate shipments, and on account of them the railroad claimed $1,209 for demurrage. The company refused to pay these, among other, demurrage charges, whereupon this action was brought in a state court of Pennsylvania to recover the amount. The trial court disallowed the claim. The judgment there entered was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state, and a petition by the railroad for a writ of certiorari was granted, 249 U. S. 595, 39 Sup. Ct. 260, 63 L. Ed. 794.

Before receipt of any of the cars the Kittaning Company had entered into an average agreement with the railroad as provided in rule 9.1 The aggregate number of days detention of these cars after they reached the company's interchange tracks (in excess of the free time under the average agreement), was 1209; and the demurrage charge fixed by rule 7 was $1 for each day, or fraction thereof, that a car is detained after the expiration of the free time. The ore in these cars was frozen in transit; and the company insisted that this detention of the cars beyond the 'free time' had resulted from this fact and claimed exemption from demurrage charges under rule 8, section A, subdivision 2, which declares that none shall be collected——

'when shipments are frozen while in transit so as to prevent unloading during the prescribed free time. This exemption shall not include shipments which are tendered to consignee in condition to unload. Under this rule consignees will be required to make diligent efforts to unload such shipments.'

The Kittaning Company had at its plant a device for thawing cars of frozen ore through 'steaming.' By this means it was able to unload as much as 5 cars of frozen ore a day. The daily average number of cars of frozen ore received during the three months was far less than 5 cars; but the number received on single days varied greatly. On many days none were received; on some only 1 or 2; and on soe , as many as 35. The railroad contended that the standard to be applied for determining, under the rule here in question, whether unloading within the prescribed free time was prevented by the shipments being frozen, was, as in other cases under the Code, the conditions applied to the car treated as a unit. It insisted, therefore, that the determination in any case whether a detention was due to the fact that the contents of a car was frozen could not be affected by the circumstances that a large number of such cars happened to have been 'bunched,' and that, as each car considered separately could have been unloaded within the free time, the consignee must bear whatever hardship might result from many having arrived on the same day, unless relief were available to him either under the 'bunching rule'2 or under the 'average agreement.' The question presented is that of construing and applying the frozen shipments clause. But in order to determine the meaning or effect of that clause, it is necessary that it be read in connection with others.

The purpose of demurrage charges is to promote car efficiency by penalizing undue detention of cars. The duty of loading and of unloading carload shipments rests upon the shipper or consignee. To this end he is entitled to detain the car a reasonable time without any payment in addition to the published freight rate. The aim of the Code was to prescribe rules, to be applied uniformly throughout the country, by which it might be determined what detention is to be deemed reasonable. In fixing the free time the framers of the Code adopted an external standard; that is, they refused to allow the circumstances of the particular shipper to be considered.

When they prescribed 48 hours as the free time they fixed the period which, in their opinion, was reasonably required by the average shipper to avail himself of the carrier's service under ordinary circumstances. The framers of the Code made no attempt to equalize conditions among shippers. It was obvious that the period fixed was more than would be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • 3 April 1959
    ...refused to exempt shippers from demurrage charges because of conditions peculiar to them. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kittaning Iron & Steel Mfg. Co., 253 U.S. 319, 323, 324, 40 S.Ct. 532, 64 L.Ed. 928; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U.S. 197-218, 16 S.Ct. 666, 40......
  • Middle Atlantic Conference v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 21 December 1972
    ...of demurrage charges is to promote car efficiency by penalizing under detention of cars. Pennsylvania R.R. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Mfg. Co., 253 U.S. 319, 323, 40 S.Ct. 532, 64 L.Ed. 928 (1920). While a secondary purpose of demurrage is to compensate the carrier for the use of his car, T......
  • W.L. Shepherd Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 24 March 1927
    ... ... 426, 27 S.Ct. 350, 51 L.Ed ... 553, 9 Ann.Cas. 1075; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Clark Bros ... Coal Min. Co., 238 U.S. 456, 35 S.Ct. 896, 59 ... 46, 61 L.Ed. 188; Pennsylvania R ... Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Mfg. Co., 253 U.S. 319, ... 40 S.Ct. 532, 64 L.Ed. 928. See, ... ...
  • Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Martin Bros. Container & Timber Products Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 29 July 1980
    ...of Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley R.R. (1917), 243 U.S. 281, 37 S.Ct. 287, 61 L.Ed. 722; Pennsylvania R.R. v. Kittaning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Co. (1920), 253 U.S. 319, 40 S.Ct. 532, 64 L.Ed. 928; and Illinois Central R.R. v. Matthews Transit Co. (1971), 132 Ill.App.2d 1084, 270 N.E.2d 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT