Pittsburgh St Ry Co v. Fink

• Decision Date: 10 November 1919
• Docket Number: No. 2,2
• Parties: PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. FINK
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

250 U.S. 577

40 S.Ct. 27

63 L.Ed. 1151

PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.

v FINK.

No. 2.

Argued Oct. 7, 1919.

Decided Nov. 10, 1919.

Messrs. William M. Matthews, Edwin P. Matthews, both of Dayton, Ohio, and F. D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Roy G. Fitzgerald, of Dayton, Ohio, for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 578-579 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

An action was brought by the railway company before a justice of the peace in Montgomery county, Ohio, to recover $15, the freight charges upon a shipment in interstate commerce from Los Angeles, Cal., to Dayton, Ohio. The defendant, Fink, prevailed in the magistrate's court, the judgment was reversed in the court of common pleas, the case was taken to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery County where the judgment of the court of common pleas was reversed and that of the magistrate affirmed. Fink v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co., 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. (N. S.) 103. The Supreme Court of Ohio denied a motion to require the record to be certified to it by the Court of Appeals, and the case is here upon writ of error to the Court of Appeals of Montgomery County, Ohio.

The facts are that the railroad company on September 13, 1910, delivered to Fink, the consignee, two boxes of Indian relics shipped to him at Dayton, Ohio, from Los Angeles, Cal., the waybill specifying charges in the sum of $15, which sum Fink paid upon receipt of the goods. The tariff rates filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission so classified this merchandise that the transportation charges should have been $30 instead of $15. It is for the difference that this action is prosecuted.

It appears that Fink had dealt with the consignor at Los Angeles in such wise that some old coins, belonging to Fink, were to be traded for a collection of Indian relics. Fink shipped the coins to the postmaster at Los Angeles to be held for his protection. At the time the action was brought, about one year after the shipment, the postmaster had released the coins, and Fink had sold some of the relics. Fink testified that he had no knowledge of the freight classification and rates, and simply paid the freight bill as it was presented to him. No agreement appears to have been made with the consignor that Fink should pay the freight charges.

Examination shows some conflict of authority as to the liability at common law of the consignee to pay freight charges under the circumstances here shown. The weight of authority seems to be that the consignee is prima facie liable for the payment of the freight charges when he accepts the goods from the carrier. See the cases collected and discussed in Hutchinson on Carriers (3d Ed.) § 1559. However this may be, in our view the question must be decided upon consideration of the applicable provisions of the statutes of the United States regulating interstate commerce. The purpose of the Act to Regulate Interstate Commerce (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379), frequently declared in the decisions of this court, was to provide one rate for all shipments of like character, and to make the only legal charge for the transportation of goods in interstate commerce the rate duly filed with the Commission. In this way discrimination is avoided, and all receive like treatment, which it is the main purpose of the act to secure.

Section 6 of the Act to Regulate Commerce (Comp. St. § 8569), which was in force at the time of this shipment, provides:

'Nor shall any carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or...