St Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Spring River Stone Company
| Decision Date | 22 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 158,158 |
| Citation | 59 L.Ed. 805,236 U.S. 718,35 S.Ct. 456 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. SPRING RIVER STONE COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Roy F. Britton, E. A. Haid, S. H. West, C. C. Collins, and H. C. Barker for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 718-720 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas Hackney for defendant in error.
A controversy between the railway company and defendant shipper concerning freight charges was adjusted by computing them upon the actual weight of the merchandise transported. Afterwards, claiming that the reckoning should have been upon the minimum capacity of cars used, the railway company sued for the difference between the two results. Defendant relied upon the settlement and also full payment; the trial court directed a verdict for it; this was approved upon appeal (169 Mo. App. 109, 154 S. W. 465); and the cause is here by writ of error.
Plaintiff in error operates a road extending northward from Fort Worth, Texas, which connects through an intermediate one with the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad whose line reaches Carthage, Missouri, where defendant is engaged in quarrying, selling and shipping stone. Having been advised by plaintiff in error's commercial agent that the rate on stone in cars of 50,000 pounds capacity to Fort Worth was 27 1/2 cents per hundred, defendant contracted to deliver five carloads to a purchaser located there. The local agent of the initial carrier at Carthage was informed that such cars would be required for the proposed shipments, and in November and December, 1908, he was requested by telephone to supply them. Cars of that size were scarce, and for its own convenience the railroad company furnished five larger ones—60,000 to 88,000 pounds—in which the shipments were made, the weight in each instance being less than the marked minimum, but appropriate for a 50,000-pound car. When these arrived at Fort Worth, charges of 27 1/2 cents per hundred, marked capacity, were demanded. They were paid, and immediately thereafter the shipper presented a claim for the amount exacted above a reckoning based on actual weights. Careful investigation was promptly made, and in February, 1909, the excess was refunded. All parties acted with knowledge of the facts, in good faith, and without purpose to evade the law.
Upon the theory that it was bound to collect freight charges according to car capacity, and that the settlement was prohibited by regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, two years thereafter plaintiff in error commenced this action to recover what it had repaid.
At the trial the waybills were not introduced, their absence was not accounted for, and their contents do not appear. No carrier's order book was produced. The shipper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., 34288.
...right to recover cannot be defeated by defendant's failure to ascertain measured "demand." St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Spring River S. Co., 236 U.S. 718, 35 Sup. Ct. 456; Davis v. Smutzinger, 281 Fed. 640; Virginian Ry. v. Lake Coal Co., 5 Fed. (2d) 496; Van Dusen, etc., Co. v. Ry. Co., 32 Fe......
-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union Electric Light & Power Co.
... ... 299 May Department Stores Company, Appellant, v. Union Electric Light & Power ... from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. Harry A ... Hamilton , Judge; Opinion ... "demand." St. Louis S.W. Ry. Co. v. Spring River S ... Co., 236 U.S. 718, 35 S.Ct. 456; ... v. Ry ... Co., 186 P. 852. (d) The Railway plant was maintained as ... a stand-by for Union ... v. St ... Louis-Southwestern ... ...
-
Louisville Co v. Central Iron Coal Co, 198
...R. R. Co. v. York & Whitney Co., 256 U. S. 406, 41 Sup. Ct. 509, 65 L. Ed. 1016. Compare St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Spring River Stone Co., 236 U. S. 718, 35 Sup. Ct. 456, 59 L. Ed. 805. But delivery of goods to a carrier for shipment does not, under the Interstate Commerce Act (Comp......
-
Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co. v. Judson F. Forwarding Co.
...by the carrier and review by the courts. I believe this conclusion is in harmony with St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Spring River Stone Co., 236 U.S. 718, 35 S.Ct. 456, 458, 59 L.Ed. 805, wherein the court said: "In effect the railway company now contends that, as the evidence fails ......