Union Transfer Co. v. Renstrom
| Decision Date | 13 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 32574.,32574. |
| Parties | UNION TRANSFER CO. v. RENSTROM et al. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
UNION TRANSFER CO.
v.
RENSTROM et al.
No. 32574.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
May 13, 1949.
Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; Dineen, Judge.
Action by Union Transfer Company against Carl Renstrom and another, copartners, doing business as Tip Top Products Company, to recover the difference between plaintiff's published tariff rates and rates paid by defendants for transportation of steel stampings. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
[37 N.W.2d 384]
1. While an interstate common carrier's duly approved, filed, and published tariff over a stipulated or designated route is in force and effect, the classifications and rates named therein are binding by statute upon both the carrier and shipper, and any statements, agreements, or conduct of the carrier or its agents concerning such classifications and rates or the shipper's ignorance of them will not estop or prevent such carrier from collecting, or relieve the shipper from liability for, the proper published rate of which he is presumed to have knowledge.
2. The reason for the rule is that the rights and duties of the carrier and shipper prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Act and the Motor Carrier Act are for the good of the public, to protect it against secret rebates and discriminations, rather than for the enrichment of either the carrier or shipper at the expense of others, and any direct or indirect evasion of such rights and duties by either is expressly prohibited by the acts.
3. When the reasonableness, discriminatory character, or validity of approved, filed, and published tariff rates is not assailed, and no question affecting the power or administrative discretion or judgment of the Interstate Commerce Commission already exercised or to be exercised is involved, but the controversy merely involves the question of whether or not the carrier has exacted the rate prescribed in its tariff, courts have jurisdiction of the subject matter.
4. Where a jury is waived in a law action and the case is tried to the court, the court's findings have the effect of a jury's verdict, and will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly wrong.
Schall, Robinson, Hruska & Garvey, Gerald M. Vasak and Charles A. Nye, all of Omaha, for appellant.
Jack W. Marer and Norman H. Denenberg, both of Omaha, for appellees.
Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., CARTER, MESSMORE, CHAPPELL, WENKE, and BOSLAUGH, JJ.
CHAPPELL, Justice.
Plaintiff, a duly authorized motor vehicle common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, brought this action to recover the difference between its duly approved, filed, and published applicable tariff rate and the rate paid by defendants, based upon alleged false descriptions in bills of lading furnished plaintiff by defendants for shipments of steel stampings loose in barrels and transported by plaintiff upon designated occasions from Omaha to St. Paul, Minnesota, and return. The items were concededly described and transported as ‘unfinished stampings' and if such, concededly carried a rate of 69 cents per 100 pounds, for which shipments defendants paid plaintiff a total of $1,274.31.
However, plaintiff alleged that the items transported were in fact ‘finished stampings,’ that is, they were steel ‘Blanks, Shapes or Stampings of 17 Gauge or thinner,’ subject to the rating for ‘Sheet Steel Ware, N. O. I. (not otherwise indexed) * * * Not nested, in barrels, metal baskets, boxes or crates,’ as provided in plaintiff's tariff, which, if such, concededly required the exaction of a first-class rate of $1.38 per 100 pounds, for which transportation defendant should have paid $2,497.69, or a difference of $1,223.38, with interest at 6 percent from August 25, 1944. Plaintiff prayed judgment for that amount.
Defendants answered, denying generally that the items shipped came within the classification or were subject to the rate claimed by plaintiff. Also, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of defendants' answer,
[37 N.W.2d 385]
plaintiff's demurrer to which was sustained by the trial court, it was substantially alleged: (4) That plaintiff was estopped to deny that the rate of 69 cents per 100 pounds was correct and estopped from charging or collecting a higher rate because plaintiff quoted, agreed to, and did carry such shipments at the lower rate; and (5) that...
To continue reading
Request your trial