Ryerson v. Riverside Cement Co.

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: TAMURA
• Citation: 266 Cal.App.2d 789,72 Cal.Rptr. 595
• Parties: David F. RYERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY, etc., Defendants and Respondents, People of the State of California, Intervener and Appellant. Civ. 8989.
• Decision Date: 23 October 1968

Page 595

72 Cal.Rptr. 595 266 Cal.App.2d 789 David F. RYERSON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY, etc., Defendants and Respondents,
People of the State of California, Intervener and Appellant. Civ. 8989. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California. Oct. 23, 1968.

Page 596

[266 Cal.App.2d 791] Reid, Babbage & Coil, Enos C. Reid and Michael H. Clepper, Riverside, for defendant and respondent Riverside Cement Co.

[266 Cal.App.2d 790] Mary Moran Pajalich, and John C. Gilman, San Francisco, for the Public Utilities Commission, for appellant and intervener.

OPINION

[266 Cal.App.2d 791] TAMURA, Associate Justice.

The People, on relation of the Public Utilities Commission, appeal from an order denying its motion for leave to intervene in an action brought by plaintiffs Ryerson and Phillips, doing business as Phillips Trucking Co. (Phillips), a highway permit carrier, against defendant Riverside Cement Company (Riverside) to recover alleged undercharges for certain shipments made in 1957.

The history of this protracted litigation may be summarized as follows:

In 1958 the Public Utilities Commission (Commission) conducted an investigation into the operations and practices of Phillips and found that it had undercharged Riverside

Page 597

for certain shipments of gypsum rock by charging multiple lot rates without issuing shipping documents in conformity with Commission tariffs. The applicable regulation, known as Item 85-A, Minimum Rate Tariff No. 2, provided in substance that before a multiple lot shipment may qualify for the rates prescribed therefor, the entire shipment must be available and tendered at one time, a single shipping document must be issued prior to or at the time of the first pickup and the entire shipment must be picked up within two days. Following a hearing the Commission rendered its decision and order directing Phillips to review its past records to determine whether undercharges in addition to those found by the Commission occurred and to take such action as may be necessary to collect them.

Pursuant to that order, Phillips reviewed its records and filed the present undercharge action on April 29, 1959. The complaint alleged that for certain shipments made in 1957 Phillips had undercharged defendant Riverside in the sum of $17,003.81, and prayed for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the parties under the Commission's decision and order. Riverside denied the undercharges and cross-complained for a decree to reform the manifest freight bills issued by Phillips to conform with Item 85-A of the Commission's tariff regulations alleging that by mutual mistake the documents failed to conform with the oral agreement of the parties respecting the terms and conditions of the shipments and that had they so conformed they would have met Commission[266 Cal.App.2d 792] requirements so as to qualify the shipments for the lower multiple lot rates.

Thereafter Phillips and Riverside filed an agreed statement of facts in which they stipulated that in 1957 they entered into an oral agreement for Phillips to haul gypsum rock from Plaster City, California to Ora Grande, California, in sufficient quantities to meet the shipper's requirements, estimated at 600 tons per week; that they agreed that the shipments were to be made in accordance with applicable Commission regulations; that Phillips hauled 412 shipments in grounds of 3, 4, 5 and sometimes 6 within a 48-hour period; that Riverside paid the rate applicable to multiple lot shipments; that the 412 shipments, together with 9 shipments investigated by the Commission, if treated as separate shipments, would have resulted in an undercharge of $17,003.81; that if the shipments were treated as multiple lot shipments in accordance with the oral agreement of the parties, no undercharges would have resulted; and that Phillips' failure to issue proper shipping documents was the result of a mutual mistake.

The court made findings in accordance with the agreed statement and on October 14, 1960, entered a decree ordering reformation of the manifest freight bills issued by Phillips and adjudged that Phillips take nothing by its complaint.

On August 16, 1961, the People, on relation of the Commission, filed an independent equitable action to vacate the judgment in the undercharge action, alleging in substance that the freight bills issued by Phillips were not the result of a mistake, that the agreed statement and judgment were collusive and that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the relief decreed. Defendant's demurrer to the complaint was sustained, judgment of dismissal was entered and the People appealed. ¹

This court reversed the judgment. (People ex rel. Public Util. Com. v. Ryerson, 241 Cal.App.2d 115, 50 Cal.Rptr. 246 (March 1966).) We held that the complaint alleged

Page 598

facts sufficient to entitle the People to equitable relief for extrinsic fraud and for lack of jurisdiction in the court below to enter its decree reforming the shipping documents on the basis of [266 Cal.App.2d 793] the agreed statement. The Supreme Court denied a hearing and the matter was remanded to the superior court. ²

On March 20, 1967, the People, on relation of the Commission, filed a petition for leave to intervene, together with a complaint in intervention and a demurrer to the cross-complaint, in the principle undercharge action. The complaint in intervention alleged in substance that Phillips had failed to collect the full amount of the established minimum rate for the shipments in question, that Phillips and...