The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 18
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
M9IrlWlGN CENT. R. 90. et al. v. ELLIO'g'
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. January 15, 1919.)
1. CoMrnRaE 97---1TEFBSTATE COMMEldRE COMMISsION-RWFARTON ODER
It is the duty of the court, in an action on a reparation prcer made by
the Iteratate Coipmerce emmnisso16n, where the recMd before' the Oom-
mission is offered 'In evit~aIce as 'against' the otder'" to inquire Whether
there' was any substantial evidence' before the Commission to justify the
order. , , . -
2. Comezniile 95---INTERTATE'COMMEBCE 'COMIBION-REPARATiow OBDER-i
'ATION--UDGMEN. ' I - ,
ndgment should, be for. defendant, in an action on a reparation order
of the Interstate Cojpmerce Commission in favor of a consignee; . there
being nothihg but the order and the 'record before thd' Commission, 'show-
ing that, while it found the charge unreasonable, it made' the order on
the mere assignment by the shipper to the consignee Of all its, claims in
the matter, after it had found that it clearly appeared that the shipper
had 'paid no freight charge, and that there was no proof that the con-
signee And paid the excess.
In Error to the District Cobtrt of the United States for the West-
ern District of New York.
Action by James R. 'Elliott against the Michigan Central Railroad
Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff after trial by the court,
and defendants bring error. Reversed, and new trial awarded.
Locke, Babcock, Spratt & Hollister, of Buffalo, 'N. Y. (Jobii M.
Sternhagen, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
August Becker and Charles Dautch, both of Buffalo, N. Y., for
defendant in error.
Before WARD, ROGERS, and HOUGH, Circuit fudges.
HOUGH, Circuit Judge. The Lippard-Stewart Company shipped
from Black Rock, N. Y., over the Michigan Central Company's lines,
to the Michigan Motors Company, at Portland, Or., three motor cars.
The shippers had requested that the cars be placed in one 50-foot
freight car. Such car not being immediately available, the motors
were put in two smaller cars, thereby increasing the freight charge.
To recover the difference between the rate asked for and that eharg-
ed; the Lippard and Michigan Motors Companies filed with the Inter-
state Commerce Commission their joint petition for reparation. The
findings of the Commission were in substance that the higher charge
was unreasonable, and that reparation was due to some one, as prayed
for; but, since it clearly appeared that Lippard Company had paid no
freight charge at all, while there was no proof that Michigan Motors
Company had paid the excess, no reparation order could be made, and
the matter would "be held open." Thereupon Lippard Company assign-
ed to Michigan Motors Company all its "claims, demands, and recover-
ies" in the premises against the carriers, and the Interstate Commission,
4:mFor other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/32/: accessed October 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.