Cummings Sand & Gravel Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.

182 Iowa 955
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedFebruary 13, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 182 Iowa 955 (Cummings Sand & Gravel Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cummings Sand & Gravel Co. v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co., 182 Iowa 955 (iowa 1918).

Opinion

Gaynor, J.

1. Carriers : control and regulation: “switching” . and “transportation” service contrasted. The defendant is a railroad company, operating a line of road north, and south through Mason City. East of defendant’s line, and nearly parallel, runs a line of road owned and operated by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, hereafter called the Milwaukee. On the line of the last named company, and connected with it by a spur track, plaintiff owned and is operating a gravel pit. The junction of the Milwaukee and the defendant company’s line is at a point approximately’' two miles south of plaintiff’s gravel pit.

Prior to the time this complaint was lodged, plaintiff had ordered cars from the defendant company to be sent doyvn its line to the junction, and up the Milwaukee line to the plaintiff’s spur track. These cars, as we understand the record, were taken by the Milwaukee Company’s switching crew to the gravel pit, and there loaded with sand, and when loaded, carried by it to its junction with the defendant road, and there switched onto defendant’s road. The defendant’s switching crew there received and carried the loaded cars to its depot. The tracks of both these companies and the junction are in Mason City. The grarel pit is slightly to the east of the city limits. For some time prior to the commencement of this action, cars loaded with sand had been carried from this gravel pit south to the junction by the Milwaukee, and then north by defendant company to its depot, and there delivered to the plaintiff on 'what is known in this record as the Quimby Track. After a number of cars had been delivered, defendant refused to receive and transport more, unless the plaintiff yvould pay to the defendant company for the cars already delivered, and for the other cars tendered, a freight rate of $8 per car, and $á additional switching charges. This the plaintiff refused to pay, claiming that the service rendered is a switching service, and claiming that defendant had served other in[957]*957dustries along this line, under approximately similar circumstances, as for switching service, at the rate of $1 a car — $2 for the Milwaukee and $2 for itself.

This action is brought to compel the defendant to receive and transport the cars tendered at the rate of $4 a car, and to compel the defendant to accept payment for cars delivered at the same rate.

It is the claim of plaintiff that the services demanded and rendered are within the switching district, and, therefore, defendant is entitled to charge and receive payment only as for switching service, to wit, per car. It is conceded that, if it is a line haul, the amount demanded by the defendant is the published tariff rate. It is not claimed that the $4 is not a proper switching charge.

The claim of the defendant is that the services rendered Avere a transportation, or line, haul, and not a switching service, and that it cannot legally charge or receive less than the tariff rate for a line haul.

We herewith submit a draft, showing the relative location of the lines and roads and junction, and the several industries, with their spur tracks, as the same appear in the record.

[958]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. v. Joseph Chevrolet Co.
791 N.E.2d 1016 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2003)
Interstate Power Co. v. Waukon Manor, Inc.
447 N.W.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 1989)
Iowa Electric Light & Power Co. v. Wendling Quarries, Inc.
389 N.W.2d 847 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986)
Montpelier & Wells River R. R. v. Caldbeck-Cosgrove Corp.
8 A.2d 681 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1939)
Martin v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
1 A.2d 224 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 Iowa 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cummings-sand-gravel-co-v-minneapolis-st-louis-railway-co-iowa-1918.