Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | 2706. |
| Citation | 228 F. 335 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Geo. W. Owens, of Savannah, Ga., for plaintiff in error.
T. M. Cunningham, of Savannah, Ga., for defendant in error.
Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and FOSTER, District Judge.
Neither the petition in this case nor the agreed statement of facts, which was adopted as the defendant's answer, shows that the plaintiff was not the owner or shipper of the goods for services of the plaintiff in the wharfage and handling of which at Savannah recovery was sought. The contrary not appearing, it may be presumed that the plaintiff was the shipper of the goods. The carrier was not entitled to pay the shipper for such services unless the charges therefor were specified in a duly published schedule or tariff. U.S. Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 8569. It appears from the statement of facts that the only schedule ever filed by the defendant which specified this charge for wharfage and handling was one which, in a proceeding instituted by the defendant before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and before this suit was brought, was directed by that body to be canceled. The effect of that decision, which, so far as appears, has not been directly attacked, was to eliminate such allowances from the filed tariff. American Sugar Refinery Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry. Co. (D.C.) 200 F. 652.
The case, then, is that of a shipper seeking to recover of a carrier for services in connection with a shipment for which no allowance is specified in a filed tariff. The plaintiff was not entitled to a judgment of the court requiring the defendant to pay for services, the payment for which voluntarily by it would be a violation of a statute. As the averments of the petition and the agreed statement of facts did not show that the plaintiff was entitled to recover any part of the amount sued for, it could not have been legally prejudiced by the action of the court in dismissing the petition.
It follows that the judgment should be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company, a Corp. v. Southern Saw Mill Company, a Corp.
... ... Picher Lead Co., 190 S.W. 387; Chicago R. R. Co ... v. Lightfoot, 232 S.W. 176; Ill. Central v ... Henderson, 226 U.S. 441, 57 L.Ed. 290. (2) It was the ... absolute duty of the plaintiff, ... unreasonable cancels the rate and makes it unlawful and void ... Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry ... Co., 228 F. 335; American Sugar Ref. Co. v. D. L. & W. Ry ... ...
-
Western Union Telegraph Company v. Arkadelphia Milling Company
...regulations. U. S. Comp. Statutes, 1916, § 8564; 162 U.S. 197; 168 U.S. 144; 71 F. 672; 226 U.S. 286; 209 U.S. 56; 195 F. 330; 149 P. 436; 228 F. 335; S.W. 1080; 154 S.W. 465; 100 Ark. 22; 106 Ark. 237; 124 Ark. 326; 198 S.W. 1132; 93 So. 238; 241 U.S. 190; 163 P. 836; 167 N.W. 475; 185 S.W......
-
National Beef Packing Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
...privileges. See also Clemons Produce Co. v. Denver & R.G.R.R., 203 Mo.App. 100, 219 S.W. 660 (1920); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 228 F. 335 (5th Cir. 1915); Jarka Corporation of Baltimore v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 130 F.2d 804 (4th Cir. 1942); Mollohan v. Atchison, ......
-
Norfolk Tidewater Terminals Inc v. Norfolk & P. Belt Line R. Co
...117 Va. 542, 85 S.E. 458. In Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia R. Co., D.C., 204 F. 476, and in Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia R. Co, 5 Cir, 228 F. 335, a claim quite like that in judgment came under review. The railway was willing to pay, provided payment was not......