Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Magnus Co.

Ohio Circuit Courts

Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Magnus Co.

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 682

DecidedAugust 6, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 682 (Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Magnus Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Circuit Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Magnus Co., 22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 682 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

SWING, J.

By force of the United States laws the rates of freight between points in the state of Alabama and Cincinnati are fixed and are not the subject of contract. The railroad company can neither charge more nor accept less than the fixed rate. In the present case the railroad company by mistake accepted less than the fixed rate from the shipper. It supposed it was receiving from the shipper the exact amount of the fixed rate and did not attempt to contract to carry the goods for less than the fixed rate. The railroad company had a lien on the goods for the balance of this freight charge, and the law made it the duty of the company to collect it. Not to do so would in effect amount to a rebate which would violate the statute. The mistake was discovered by the company before it delivered the goods and the Magnus Company were notified that the amount of the error was charged against the goods. The Magnus Company, under an agreement with the railway company, were allowed to receive all freight consigned to them and pay the charges at stated periods, the Magnus Company being on what is known as the credit list. On the facts we think the Magnus Company is liable for the balance due on the freight the same as if no freight had been paid.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Giffen and Smith, JJL, concur

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

SWING, J.

By force of the United States laws the rates of freight between points in the state of Alabama and Cincinnati are fixed and are not the subject of contract. The railroad company can neither charge more nor accept less than the fixed rate. In the present case the railroad company by mistake accepted less than the fixed rate from the shipper. It supposed it was receiving from the shipper the exact amount of the fixed rate and did not attempt to contract to carry the goods for less than the fixed rate. The railroad company had a lien on the goods for the balance of this freight charge, and the law made it the duty of the company to collect it. Not to do so would in effect amount to a rebate which would violate the statute. The mistake was discovered by the company before it delivered the goods and the Magnus Company were notified that the amount of the error was charged against the goods. The Magnus Company, under an agreement with the railway company, were allowed to receive all freight consigned to them and pay the charges at stated periods, the Magnus Company being on what is known as the credit list. On the facts we think the Magnus Company is liable for the balance due on the freight the same as if no freight had been paid.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Giffen and Smith, JJL, concur

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Ohio C.C. Dec. 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-nashville-ry-v-magnus-co-ohiocirct-1910.