New York, Phila. & Norfolk R. R. v. Ambler-Davis Co.

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

New York, Phila. & Norfolk R. R. v. Ambler-Davis Co.

3 Pa. D. & C. 485, 1923 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 9

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedApril 25, 1923

DocketNo. 7759

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pa. D. & C. 485 (New York, Phila. & Norfolk R. R. v. Ambler-Davis Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

New York, Phila. & Norfolk R. R. v. Ambler-Davis Co., 3 Pa. D. & C. 485, 1923 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 9 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Martin, P. J.,

Plaintiff sued to recover carriage charges for a carload of sand shipped from Northeast, Maryland, to Costen, Maryland.

The affidavit of defence averred that the carload of sand was not consigned to defendant, but, through an error on the part of plaintiff, was shipped to defendant, although intended for another consignee; that defendant did not desire the sand and only agreed to receive it by reason of an agreement entered into between plaintiff, the defendant and the consignee of the sand, by the terms of which defendant agreed to purchase the sand from the consignee, and plantiff agreed to accept a freight rate less than the established tariff, in consideration of defendant accepting the sand and releasing the ear. This agreement was consummated, and defendant paid the plaintiff the freight, which plaintiff accepted. This suit was instituted to recover the difference between the amount of freight paid by defendant and the sum chargeable in accordance with the established tariff rate.

The affidavit does not deny that the sand was shipped over the route alleged in the statement of claim, or that the established tariff rate was not the amount averred in the statement of claim, but alleges “that plaintiff expressly agreed to waive the existing tariff rate on this particular carload of sand, and offered to accept in lieu thereof” a lower rate, which was paid by defendant.

[486]*486It was not within the power of the plaintiff to make the contract set forth in the affidavit of defence: Central R. R. Co. of N. J. v. Mauser, 241 Pa. 603. The fact that defendant made payment in accordance with the terms of the contract does not prevent the recovery of the balance of freight as specified in the published schedule: Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Crutchfield, 55 Pa. Superior Ct. 346. Rule absolute.

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

Martin, P. J.,

Plaintiff sued to recover carriage charges for a carload of sand shipped from Northeast, Maryland, to Costen, Maryland.

The affidavit of defence averred that the carload of sand was not consigned to defendant, but, through an error on the part of plaintiff, was shipped to defendant, although intended for another consignee; that defendant did not desire the sand and only agreed to receive it by reason of an agreement entered into between plaintiff, the defendant and the consignee of the sand, by the terms of which defendant agreed to purchase the sand from the consignee, and plantiff agreed to accept a freight rate less than the established tariff, in consideration of defendant accepting the sand and releasing the ear. This agreement was consummated, and defendant paid the plaintiff the freight, which plaintiff accepted. This suit was instituted to recover the difference between the amount of freight paid by defendant and the sum chargeable in accordance with the established tariff rate.

The affidavit does not deny that the sand was shipped over the route alleged in the statement of claim, or that the established tariff rate was not the amount averred in the statement of claim, but alleges “that plaintiff expressly agreed to waive the existing tariff rate on this particular carload of sand, and offered to accept in lieu thereof” a lower rate, which was paid by defendant.

[486]*486It was not within the power of the plaintiff to make the contract set forth in the affidavit of defence: Central R. R. Co. of N. J. v. Mauser, 241 Pa. 603. The fact that defendant made payment in accordance with the terms of the contract does not prevent the recovery of the balance of freight as specified in the published schedule: Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Crutchfield, 55 Pa. Superior Ct. 346. Rule absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pa. D. & C. 485, 1923 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-phila-norfolk-r-r-v-ambler-davis-co-pactcomplphilad-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack