Western & A. R. Co v. White Provision Co

• Citation: 142 Ga. 246,82 S.E. 644
• Decision Date: 18 August 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 508.)
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Parties: WESTERN & A. R. CO. v. WHITE PROVISION CO.

82 S.E. 644
(142 Ga. 246)

WESTERN & A. R. CO.
v.
WHITE PROVISION CO.

(No. 508.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 18, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Action by the White Provision Company against the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Tye, Peeples & Jordan, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Dorsey, Brewster, Howell & Heyman, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN, J. [1] This case comes before us on a bill of exceptions assigning error on the overruling of a demurrer to a petition. The leading question involved is whether the suit is one of which the state court has jurisdiction, or whether the claim must first be presented to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the act of Congress of 1SS7, to regulate interstate commerce and its amendments (chapter 104, 24 Stat. 384, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3165; chapter 3591, 34 Stat. 590, U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1301). It has been declared that the act of Congress, whilst prohibiting unreasonable and unjust charges, unjust discriminations and undue preferences by carriers subject to its provisions, also prescribed the manner in which that prohibition should be enforced. Accordingly, after a schedule of rates was established as prescribed by law, it was held that a shipper could not maintain an action at common law in a state court for excessive and unreasonable freight rates exacted on interstate shipments, where the rates charged were those which had been duly fixed by the carrier according to the act and had not been found unreasonable by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 Sup. Ct. 350, 51 L. Ed. 553, 9 Ann. Cas. 1075. The distribution to shippers of coal cars, including those owned by the shippers and those used by the carrier for its own fuel, in interstate commerce, is a matter involving preference and discrimination, and one for investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 215 U. S. 481, 30 Sup. Ct. 164, 54 L. Ed. 292. And this has been applied even to criminal cases. United States v. Pacific & Arctic Co., 228 U.

[82 S.E. 645]

S. 87, 33 Sup. Ct. 443, 57 L. Ed. 742. But not every suit against an interstate carrier is necessarily within the principle of the rulings above cited. Nor is the present suit of that character.

The plaintiff alleged the following, among other things: It purchased a car load of hogs and caused them to be shipped from Kelso, Tenn., to Atlanta, Ga. The hogs...