Opinion · Nylaw New York

SAITTA JONES v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., 109 Misc. 604 (1919)

179 N.Y.S. 471

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1919-01-01
Topic
general

SAITTA JONES v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., 109 Misc. 604 (1919) 179 N.Y.S. 471 SAITTA JONES, Plaintiffs, v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term December, 1919. Burlingham, Veeder, Masten Fearey, for motion. Ernest P.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SAITTA JONES v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., 109 Misc. 604 (1919). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SAITTA JONESv. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO.,109 Misc. 604(1919)
179 N.Y.S. 471
SAITTA JONES, Plaintiffs,v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term
December, 1919.
Burlingham, Veeder, Masten Fearey, for motion.

Ernest P. Seelman, opposed.
BROWN, J.
On or about December 15, 1916, the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs for a good and sufficient consideration that it would furnish at Pier B, Jersey City, not later than Saturday morning, December 16, 1916, six freight cars for plaintiffs' use in shipping grapes over defendant's railroad to Iowa and other states. For the breach of this contract the plaintiffs have had a verdict for their damages. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and for judgment against the plaintiffs upon the ground that the contract above stated was illegal and void, it being prohibited by the Interstate Commerce Act. The motion was temporarily denied with a view of taking the verdict and passing upon the question upon a motion to set the same aside. The opportunity afforded for a more careful examination of the question than was presented at the trial leads to the conclusion that the motion to dismiss the complaint and for judgment in defendant's favor ought to have been granted.Page 605

The plain reading of sections 1(b), 3, 6(a) and 6(g) of the Interstate Commerce Act (4 Fed. Stat. An.) prohibits a common carrier from making any special contract relative to its cars as facilities of interstate shipment that is not specified in tariffs filed with the commission. The defendant had not filed any tariff with the commission that provided for the contract made herein.

The following authorities condemn the contract under consideration, and it cannot be the basis of a claim for damages:Chicago Alton R.R. Co. v.Kirby,225 U.S. 155;AmericanSmelting R. Co. v.Union Pac. R. Co.,256 Fed. Repr. 737;Georgia, Fla. Ala. Ry. Co. v.Blish Milling Co.,241 U.S. 190;J.H. Hamlen Sons Co. v.Illinois Cent. Ry.,212 Fed. Repr. 324;Chicago, R.I. Pac. R. Co. v.Hardwick ElevatorCo.,226 U.S. 426;Southern Ry. Co. v.Reid,222 id. 424;Morrisdale Coal Co. v.Penna. R. Co.,230 id. 304;SouthernRy. Co. v.Prescott,240 id. 632.

Motion granted.