Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Ry. Co. v. Magnolia Provision Co.
Beaumont, Sour Lake & W. Ry. Co. v. Magnolia Provision Co., 26 F.2d 72 (5th Cir. 1928)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1928-05-10
- Topic
- general
BRYAN, Circuit Judge. The appellant railroad carriers published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a rate of 23 cents per hundredweight on tin cans from New Orleans to destination points that included Houston, Tex. While that remained a published rate, appellee shippers were required to pay 70 cents per hundredweight. The shipper in two of these cases brought suit to recover the excess above 23 cents, and in the other the carrier sued to recover a refund of the difference which it had paid to *73 the shipper. The cases were consolidated for trial, as the question in each is the same, and resulted in judgments for the shippers.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Beaumont, Sour Lake & Western Ry. Co. v. Magnolia Provision Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 18 opinions
BEAUMONT, SOUR LAKE W. R. v. MAGNOLIA PROV.,26 F.2d 72(5th Cir. 1928)
BEAUMONT, SOUR LAKE WESTERN RY. CO. v. MAGNOLIA PROVISION CO. TEXAS
N.O.R. CO. et al. v. SAME. TEXAS N.O.R. CO. v. HOUSTON PACKING CO.
No. 5191.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 10, 1928.
Actions by the Magnolia Provision Company against the Beaumont, Sour Lake Western Railway Company and against the Texas New Orleans Railroad Company and others, and by the Texas New Orleans Railroad Company against the Houston Packing Company. From judgments (20 F.[2d] 384) for plaintiff in first two cases, defendants appeal, and from a judgment for defendant in the third case, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
John T. Garrison and C.E. Coolidge, both of Houston, Tex. (Garrison Watson, of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellants Texas N.O.R.R. Co. and others.
Carl G. Stearns and James J. Shaw, both of Houston, Tex. (Fulbright, Crooker Freeman, of Houston, Tex., on the brief), for appellees, Magnolia Provision Co. and Houston Packing Co.
Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.
The 23-cent rate was published in the tariff schedules by mistake. The carriers intended to continue in force the pre-existing rate of 70 cents. A result of that mistake was to name a rate from New Orleans to Houston less than the rate in effect between intermediate points and Houston, in violation of the long and short haul clause of the Interstate Commerce Act. 49 USCA § 4(1); Comp. St. § 8566(1).
Appellants liken a published tariff rate to a contract between the carrier and the shipper in support of the argument that a mistake can be corrected so as to give effect to the intention of the parties. A shipper has no voice in the fixing of rates, but must pay the published rate, and can only make claim of reparation on account of a rate that is unjust or discriminatory. The Supreme Court has held that a published tariff rate is to be treated as though it were a statute binding upon both the carrier and the shipper. Penn. R.R. Co. v. International Coal Co.,230 U.S. 184,33 S. Ct. 893,57 L. Ed. 1446, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 315. Section 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA § 6; Comp. St. § 8569) provides that a carrier shall not charge or receive any different compensation, whether greater or less, than that shown by the file and published schedule of rates. It is well settled by Supreme Court decisions that this provision of law must be strictly complied with because it is necessary to carry out the purpose of Congress to prevent unjust discrimination. Gulf, Colorado Santa Fé R.R. Co. v. Hefley,158 U.S. 98,15 S. Ct. 802,39 L. Ed. 910; New York, New Haven Hartford R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission,200 U.S. 361,26 S. Ct. 272,50 L. Ed. 515; T. P.R.R. Co. v. Mugg,202 U.S. 242,26 S. Ct. 628,50 L. Ed. 1011; L. N.R.R. Co. v. Mottley,219 U.S. 467,31 S. Ct. 265,55 L. Ed. 297, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 671; Keogh v. Chicago N.W.R.R. Co.,260 U.S. 156,43 S. Ct. 47,67 L. Ed. 183. In Lamb-Fish Lumber Co. v. Y. M.V.R.R. Co., 42 I.C.C. 470, the Interstate Commerce Commission announces the rule that proof of error in the publication of rates does not justify a departure from the published rates, even though shippers have full knowledge that the rates were published by mistake, and that decision was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Portland Seed Co.,264 U.S. 403,424,44 S. Ct. 380,68 L. Ed. 762. The carriers cannot defend by showing that published rates, if enforced, would violate the long and short haul clause and subject them to penalties. Such a showing would only be evidence of intention indicating that a mistake was made. Because of the policy of the law, the rate must be abided by as long as it is included in published schedules of rates. The remedy of the carriers is to apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission to have the rate changed.
The judgments are affirmed.Page 74