Norton v. N. B. Fairclough, Inc.

72 F. Supp. 308, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1495
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedMarch 13, 1945
DocketCivil Action No. 3548
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 F. Supp. 308 (Norton v. N. B. Fairclough, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Norton v. N. B. Fairclough, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 308, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1495 (D.N.J. 1945).

Opinion

SMITH, District Judge.

This is a civil action for the recovery of demurrage charges assessed against the defendant under Freight Tariff No. 4W— I.C.C. 3722, and Freight Tariff No. 4X— I.C.C. 3-815, pursuant to an “average demur-rage agreement.” The action is before the Court at this time on a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff pursuant to rule 56, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and is submitted on the pleadings, affidavits, and documentary evidence.

There are no genuine issues as to any of the material facts, and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The proof offered by the plaintiff is conclusive, and the defendant’s mere denial of liability, unsupported by any allegations of fact, raises no genuine issue of- fact.

It is alleged by the defendant in its answering affidavit that the “demurrage claims of the plaintiff were caused by the bunching of cars by the plaintiff.” This averment is insufficient to defeat the plaintiff’s right to judgment. There is no proof by affidavit or otherwise, that a claim for bunching was “presented in writing to (the) railroad’s agent within thirty days, * * *, after the date on which bill for demurrage (was) rendered,” as required by Rule 8, Section B(2) of the Tariffs.1 The proof offered by the plaintiff is, in fact, to the contrary. It is the opinion of the Court that this defense is sham and was interposed only for the purpose of delay.

The motion for summary judgment is granted, and an order for judgment shall be entered forthwith.

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

Related

St. Louis, Southwestern Railway Co. v. Mays
177 F. Supp. 182 (E.D. Arkansas, 1959)
Norton v. Supreme Fuel Sales Co.
72 F. Supp. 287 (D. New Jersey, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 F. Supp. 308, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-n-b-fairclough-inc-njd-1945.