National Van Lines, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

355 F.2d 326, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7524
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedJanuary 14, 1966
Docket15071_1
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 355 F.2d 326 (National Van Lines, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Van Lines, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, 355 F.2d 326, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7524 (7th Cir. 1966).

Opinion

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.

The Household Goods Carriers' Bureau and ten motor carriers of household goods, suing as members of a class, seek reversal of a district court decision upholding an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The order of the Commission concluded that the carriers had collected charges from shippers in excess of published tariffs in violation of section 217(b) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 317(b). 1 The question presented concerns the Commission-’s interpretation of the tariffs published by the carriers. 2

The tariffs in issue were filed in 1959 by the Household Goods Carriers’ Bureau, as agent for its 1700 carrier-members, pursuant to agreements approved by the Commission. The 1959 tariffs replaced tariffs which had been in effect since early 1957. The difference between the 1957 and 1959 tariffs provides the background for this appeal.

The general features of the 1957 and 1959 tariffs are similar. Both begin with extensive recitation of general rules and regulations, followed by a table giving rates for shipments of various distances and weights.

Section II of the 1957 tariffs, 3 which follows the general provisions, is a rate-fixing section. Its scope of application is specifically stated to be “shipments * * * transported between all points in the United States, Canada and Mexico.” The following exception then appears: “These rates will not apply in territory described in Section III except as otherwise provided in Section III. * # * ” The rate table itself is then set out, providing rates for shipments of different weights for distances from 1 to 4300 miles. At the end of the rate table is a note which reads: “Over 4300 miles, see Rule 23.”

Section III of the 1957 tariffs is another rate-fixing section. It specifically relates to shipments from the northeast *329 ern part of the country and certain parts of the Chicago metropolitan area to “any point in the United States, Canada and Mexico.” The rate table which follows lists rates for shipments of different weights for distances from 1 to 500 miles. 4 A note at the end of the table states: “Over 500 miles, apply rates shown in Section II.”

Rule 23, mentioned in the note after the tables in Section II, is contained in the general provisions of both the 1957 and 1959 tariffs. It provides that when a shipment is transported a distance in excess of that shown in the rate tables, a charge of 75 cents (25 cents in the 1959 tariffs) will be added “for each additional 100 miles * * * in excess of the distance shown in the rate table to obtain per hundred pound rate applicable on the shipment.” 5

The 1957 tariffs were replaced by tariffs filed during 1959. 6 The provisions of the new tariffs were nearly identical with those of the 1957 tariffs, 7 except for changes necessary to reflect rate increases 8 and with one relevant omission. The 1959 tariffs inadvertently omitted the note “over 500 miles, apply rates shown in Section II” at the end of the table in Section III.

In spite of the omission of the note at the end of Section III, the carriers continued to apply the rates stated in the 1 to 4300 mile table of Section II to shipments exceeding the 500 mile limit of the table in Section III. In other words, on shipments originating in the northeastern states and the Chicago metropolitan area the carriers computed charges from the rate table in Section III for shipments between 1 and 500 miles, and utilized Section II for shipments over 500 and under 4300 miles.

Early in 1960, the omission of the note at the end of the table in Section III of the 1959 tariffs was noticed by a shipper, who thereupon filed claims for overcharges. The shipper contended that, with the omission of the note, shipments originating in Section III territory which were transported a distance in excess of 500 miles were governed by Section III in conjunction with Rule 23 rather than by Section II, thus producing substantially lower charges than those computed under Section II.

The note following the table in Section III was eventually reinserted by tariff supplements issued from time to time during 1960.

The Commission began an investigation late in 1960 to determine whether the carriers had charged rates greater than, or different from, those prescribed in the 1959 tariffs. A majority of six Commissioners found that the charges made by the carriers during the period when the note at the end of Section III was omitted were not in conformity with a proper interpretation • of the tariffs. Five Commissioners dissented, four of them on the ground that the omission of the note had no effect on the application of the tariffs.

The construction given by the majority was incorporated in the Commission’s *330 order. 9 A motion to vacate the order was denied. The district court affirmed the order of the Commission. This appeal followed.

The Commission based its decision upon the proposition that a literal interpretation of the 1959 tariffs results in but one possible construction. The following portions of the tariffs are pertinent to the Commission’s reasoning: (1) Section II, which provides a rate table for distances from 1 to 4300 miles and is applicable to shipments from and to “all points in the United States * * *, Canada and Mexico,” states that its rates do not apply in “territory described” in Section III “except as otherwise provided in Section III”; (2) Section III provides a 1 to 500 mile rate table which applies to all shipments originating from the points described therein and destined for “any point in the United States * * *, Canada and Mexico”; (3) Rule 23, applicable “when a shipment is transported a distance in excess of that shown in the rate tables,” provides, “first find the rate in the applicable weight column for the greatest distance shown in the applicable table of rates. Add to [this] rate * * * ”

From these provisions, the Commission reasoned that Section II is not applicable to any shipments, regardless of distance from any point listed on the title page of Section III, and that therefore the rate for a shipment in excess of 500 miles originating from any point listed in Section III must be determined by adding an amount based upon the formula in Rule 23 to the rate provided by Section III for the maximum 500-mile distance. The Commission concluded, in effect, that without the note contained in the 1957 tariffs, Section III does not allow a shipment from Section III territory in excess of 500 miles to be charged at Section II rates. The Commission summarized its position as follows.

This title page [Section III] contains no exception which would allow section II rates to apply on such shipments.

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

Related

Verizon Virginia, LLC v. XO Communications, LLC
144 F. Supp. 3d 850 (E.D. Virginia, 2015)
Carriers Traffic Service, Inc. v. Toastmaster, Inc.
707 F. Supp. 1498 (N.D. Illinois, 1988)
Giacona v. Marubeni Oceano (Panama) Corp.
623 F. Supp. 1560 (S.D. Texas, 1985)
TADMS, INC. v. Consolidated Freightways
619 F. Supp. 385 (C.D. California, 1985)
Texasgulf, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co.
610 F. Supp. 1329 (District of Columbia, 1985)
United States v. United States Steel Corporation
645 F.2d 1285 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. Tabor Grain Co.
488 F. Supp. 110 (N.D. Illinois, 1980)
Matthews v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co.
245 S.E.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
355 F.2d 326, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-van-lines-inc-v-united-states-of-america-and-interstate-ca7-1966.