Winsor Coal Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co.
Decision Date | 07 November 1892 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Parties | WINSOR COAL CO. v. CHICAGO & A.R. CO. |
Alexander Graves, for plaintiff.
Wash Adams, for defendant.
There are various counts in the petition. The substantive charge in each is that the defendant, a common carrier, charged the plaintiff unreasonable and unjust rates on car loads of coal shipped from Higginsville to Kansas City, Mo.; that 45 cents per ton was the just and reasonable rate for such service whereas defendant exacted more than 65 cents per ton. Judgement is prayed for three times the amount of the excess as by statute in such case made and provided. To this petition defendant interposes a demurrer. It demurs to the first 48 counts for the reason that the causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations, and to all of the counts on the ground that they do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The question broadly raised and argued by both counsel is whether or not a railroad company which has not exacted a charge in excess of the maximum rate fixed by the state is nevertheless liable to an action for triple damages, as for extortion, as prescribed in the act of the legislature adopted by the extra session of 1887, p. 15. The plaintiff contends that this statute gives to the shipper a right of action for an unreasonable charge made by the carrier, whether or not the sum charged be more or less than the maximum prescribed by the railroad commissioners; while the defendant contends that no charge made by it can be unlawful, subject to the statutory pains and penalties, when the charge made is within the limits prescribed by the state's authority. By the first section of this act all railways in the state are declared to be public highways and common carriers; and all charges made for services in the transportation of freight shall be reasonable and just; 'and all unreasonable and unjust charges for such services are prohibited, and declared unlawful. ' By sections 10 and 11 a right of action is given against such carrier for doing an act or thing in said act prohibited, or declared to be unlawful, or omitting to do anything enjoined thereby, and giving to the person injured three times the amount of damages sustained, by suit in any circuit court of any county or city where the road is operated. But these are not all the provisions of this statute, and we must look to the enactment as an entirety to discover its real purport and proper construction. As is said in In re Bomino's Estate, 83 Mo. 441
By the expressed declaration of the statute in the concluding paragraph, 'this act is not intended to repeal any law now in force, unless in direct conflict therewith, but is intended to be supplemental to such laws.'
Under the then existing statutes of the state the legislature had undertaken the task of regulating freight rates of railroads. It had prescribed a maximum charge for the class of property in question, and made various provisions against extortionate charges, unjust discriminations, and combinations. It had created the office of railroad commissioners, and invested them with various powers of supervision over the railroads of the state. The general policy of the statute was and is to prevent extortionate charges, unjust discriminations, combinations, and favoritism. The railroad commissioners were empowered to reduce the rates of railroads, either in general or special classes, whenever, in their judgment, it could be equitably done, and the railroad companies were bound by the decision of the commissioners; 'and every violation by any company charging a greater or higher rate' was declared a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, should pay a fine of not less than $20 nor more than $200 for each and every offense; and the injured party should have a right of action against the carrier before any court of competent jurisdiction for the recovery of three times the amount taken or demanded in excess of the rates prescribed. Rev. St. Mo. 1889, Secs. 2675, 2676, 2679, 2682, 2684, 2686. By the act of 1887 the legislature simply sought, by additional powers conferred on the railroad commissioners, and restrictions, obligations, and liabilities imposed upon the common carrier, to still further accomplish the policy of the state in regulating the rate of freight charges. The first section opens with the declaration of what was already an existing common-law axiom, and reaffirmed in section 14, art. 12, of the state constitution, that such roads are public highways and common carriers; and therefore they are subject to the legislative power to interdict unjust and unreasonable charges for the performance of their duty to the public.
Among its salient and more important provisions are the following Such common carrier shall neither directly nor indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or any device, take from one citizen less than from another for a like service rendered; nor charge more for transporting a car of freight then it charges at the same time for several cars of like class, etc.; nor give advantages to any person or corporation in the transportation of goods over any other person or corporation. It shall not receive a greater compensation in the aggregate for transportation of property, etc., over a shorter than a longer distance. It is prohibited from pooling of freights. It is required to establish and publish its schedule of rates, which shall be notice of any proposed change, except when the rates are to be reduced, in which latter event notice shall be publicly posted, etc. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Blind
... ... Kansas City, etc., R. Co. (1899), 33 Mo.App. 509; ... McGrew v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. (1893), 114 ... Mo. 210, 21 S.W. 463; Winsor Coal Co. v ... Chicago, etc., R. Co. (1892), 52 F. 716; [182 Ind ... 413] Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. People ... (1875), 77 Ill. 443; ... ...
-
State ex inf. Crow v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
...Mo. 546; Railroad v. Railroad, 149 Mo. 245; Young v. Railroad, 33 Mo.App. 509; State ex rel. v. Marlow, 15 Ohio St. 114.] In Winsor Coal Co. v. Railroad, 52 F. 716, it is "The right of action existing at common law in favor of the shipper for extortionate charges was superseded by the remed......
-
The State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
...v. Railroad, 63 Iowa 732; Southern Ry. v. Ala. R. R. Com., 196 Fed. l. c. 560; Bellamy v. Railroad, 220 Fed. l. c. 878; Coal Co. v. Railroad, 52 F. 716.] The facts of the relations between the State, the only party plaintiff, and the defendant, pleaded in the petition, if proven, would have......
-
McGrew v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co.
... ... 269; Callahan v ... Judges of Superior Court, 26 N.W. 806; Chicago & Alton v. People, 67 Ill. 11; 26 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law ... (2 Ed.), pp. 579 and 590. (12) The ... railroad ... Plaintiff ... owned and operated a coal mine at Myrick, Missouri, on the ... line of said railroad, and shipped his coal from there to ... 210; ... Railroad v. Smith, supra; McCully v. Railroad, 212 ... Mo. 1 and 18; Winsor Coal Co. v. Railroad, 52 F ... 716; Cohn v. Railroad, 181 Mo. 30.] ... Now, ... ...