United States v. Chicago, RI & PR Co., 14123.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 14123.,14123. |
| Citation | 200 F.2d 263 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
R. Daniel Settle, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellant.
John A. Kerr, Jr., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, RUSSELL, and STRUM, Circuit Judges.
The Government seeks to reverse a holding that the limitation for the giving of notice of loss or damage, contained in a Uniform Domestic Bill of Lading, under which certain grain was shipped by the Commodity Credit Corporation, operates as a bar to recovery of damages by such corporation. The grain was shipped during February and March, 1948, and arrived at its destination during those months. Claims for shortages were filed with the railroad on December 21 and 28, 1948, more than nine months after delivery, and liability therein was denied by the companies.
This suit was filed on April 26, 1951. The bills of lading issued by the railroad contained a provision to the effect that, as a condition precedent to recovery for such loss or damage, a claim in writing must be filed with the carrier within nine months after delivery of the property, or within nine months after the lapse of a reasonable time in the case of failure to make delivery, and that suits should be filed within two years and one day from the date when notice in writing was given by the carrier that the claim had been disallowed.
Conceding that statutes of limitation may not be asserted as defenses against the claims of the Government, appellee contends that the bills of lading are contracts which the corporation had authority to make, and that the limitations contained therein are binding upon the Government. The appellant contends that it is not bound by the provisions in the bills of lading because they are in accordance with the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which have the force and effect of law, since the Government is not and cannot be barred by legal limitations in the absence of an act of Congress so providing.
The bill of lading, issued by the railroad company and accepted by the Commodity Credit Corporation, is the contract that governs the movements of each shipment in question. It is not disputed that the particular limitations above mentioned were contained in each bill of lading at the time the contract of transportation came into existence. Therefore, they are just as much a part of the contract as any other clause or paragraph therein. Such a provision, many times, has been held valid as to ordinary shippers. Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Mackie, 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 641.
The appellant does not contend that the Commodity Credit Corporation lacked authority to enter into these contracts concerning the transportation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Republic Ins. Co.
...the United States is a party. United States v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 366 F.2d 316, 320 (2d Cir.1966); United States v. Chicago R.I. & P.R. Co., 200 F.2d 263, 264 (5th Cir.1952); United States v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 22 F.2d 113, 115 (4th Cir.1927); United States v. Framen Steel Sup......
-
United States v. Yale Transport Corp.
...5 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 417; Seaboard Air Line R. R. Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 855; United States v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 5 Cir., 1952, 200 F. 2d 263; United States v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 4 Cir., 1927, 22 F.2d 113; Grace Line, Inc. v. United States, D.C.S.D.N.Y. ......
-
American Airlines, Inc. v. Austin
...397, 401, 57 L.Ed. 690 (1913); United States v. Republic Ins. Co., 775 F.2d 156, 158-59 (6th Cir.1985); United States v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 200 F.2d 263, 264 (5th Cir.1952); United States v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 22 F.2d 113, 115 (4th Cir.1927). See also Do-Well Machine Shop, In......
-
United States v. Bethke
...bears the same relationship to the government as it does to a private citizen using its facilities. United States v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 5 Cir., 1952, 200 F.2d 263. In the absence of a special arrangement under "Section 22" binding upon the defendant by reason of some concurrence on......