Samuels v. Louisville & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 January 1887
• Citation: 31 F. 57
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
• Parties: SAMUELS and another v. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.

31 F. 57

SAMUELS and another v. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Alabama.

April Term, 1887

L. W Day, for plaintiffs.

R. A McClellan and C. C. Harris, for defendant.

BRUCE J.

The plaintiffs allege they were engaged as common carriers for hire by means of steam-boats on the Tennessee river, between Decatur and intermediate points, to Bridgeport, in the year 1886; that at the same time, and between the same points on the Tennessee river, the steam-boats Chattanooga and Wilder were also running on the river between the same points, as carriers, in competition with the plaintiffs; that the defendant, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, a common carrier by rail, operating its roads south from Louisville, Kentucky, to points on the Tennessee river discriminated against plaintiffs in the matter of freights delivered to them by plaintiffs for transportation to points of destination, and in favor of the steam-boats Chattanooga and Wilder; that the discrimination consisted in this: that, for substantially the same service in the carriage of the same class of freight, under like circumstances and conditions, and to the same points of destination, the defendant railroad company charged and received from the plaintiffs 50 cents more per hundred than it charged and received from the steam-boats Chattanooga and Wilder. Plaintiffs say that, by reason of such discrimination and charges for freight against them, they were injured in their business as common carriers on the river, and were put to expense, trouble, and increased risk in carrying their freight long distances on the river, to obtain carriage for it to points of destination, for which alleged injury to them they bring this complaint and suit for damages. The demurrer admits the discrimination in the rates, as stated; and the question at once suggests itself whether a common carrier, under the circumstances stated, has the right to have and maintain two prices, or different prices to different parties, for substantially the same service rendered under like conditions.

The question here is not whether a common carrier must necessarily have one and the same price for all, or whether a discrimination in a single case can be made the ground of an action; but here were two lines of steam-boats on the Tennessee river, plying between the same points, carrying freight for hire, and bearing the same relation to the defendant railroad company, both seeking its service to carry their freight to the same points of destination; and the question is, has the defendant the right to discriminate against one, and in favor of the other, not in a single or isolated case, when different circumstances and conditions might be at once suggested, but systematically, in a course of dealing with the plaintiffs in the transportation of their freight?

The idea that lies at the very base of the law of common carriers is that they are public servants, and serve all alike. The general proposition needs no citation of authority, and, as applied to railroad companies, the doctrine is thus stated by MCCRARY, J., in the case of Southern Exp. Co. v. Memphis R.R., 13 Cent. Law J. 68, 8 F. 802.

'(1) A railroad company is a quasi public corporation, and bound by the law regulating the powers and duties of common carriers of persons and property; (2) it is the duty of such a company, as a public servant, to receive and carry goods for all persons alike, without injurious discrimination as to rates or terms.'

Other cases might be cited to the same purport. In Hays v. Pennsylvania Co., 12 F. 311, BAXTER, J. says:

'The defendant is a common carrier by rail. Its road, although owned by a corporation, was nevertheless constructed for public uses, and is, in a qualified sense, a public highway. Hence everybody constituting a part of the public, for whose benefit it was authorized, is entitled to an equal and impartial participation in the use of the facilities which it is capable of affording. Its ownership by the corporation is in trust, as well for the public as for the shareholders; but its first and primary obligation is to the public.'

In the light of these authorities, where can this defendant railroad company and public servant base its right to make the discrimination claimed by this demurrer? If a discrimination of 50 cents per hundred can be thus made and sustained, under such circumstances, then any discrimination, however great and oppressive, can be made; and practically the defendant can say who may and who may not serve the public, as common carriers on the Tennessee river, one of the great water-ways of commerce in the United States.

It is true there is a line of decisions to the effect that railroad companies may make different rates to different persons; and the cases show upon what grounds discrimination in rates may be and are sustained, and upon what grounds they have been held to be vicious, and are condemned, by the courts. But it is not necessary here to go into any examination of the cases on this line of decision until advised by plea or otherwise upon what ground, and under what...