Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States

281 F. 1014, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1742, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1523
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedJuly 6, 1922
DocketNos. 2982-2984, 2999
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 F. 1014 (Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 281 F. 1014, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1742, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1523 (S.D. Ohio 1922).

Opinion

SATER, District Judge.

In each case a demurrer has been filed to the petition, and should, in my judgment, be sustained for the following reasons:

[1] 1. Demurrage is a terminal charge—a part of the charge for transportation. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. U. S., 188 Fed. 879, 884-886, 110 C. C. A. 513; Wilson Produce Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 14 Interst. Com. Com’n R., 170, 174; Michie v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (C. C.) 151 Fed. 694. If it be conceded that the purpose of demur-rage is primarily to prevent the detention of cars, the enforcement of its payment is also to be regarded as a part of the charge of transportation. In re Investigation and Suspension of Advances and Demurrage Charges, etc., 25 Interst. Com. Com’n R., 314, 315; Industrial Railways Cases, 29 Interst. Com. Com’n R., 212, 237. The demurrage charge is a proper one, whether it is regarded as or as relating to facilities of shipment, services in connection with the delivery of goods, or the storage or handling of the same. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hardwick Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 426, 33 Sup. Ct. 174, 57 L. Ed. 284, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 203.

[2] 2. On the averments made in their respective petitions, payments were not made under protest or duress, but voluntarily. Recovery, therefore, cannot be had. See Chesebrough v. United States, 192 U. S. 253, 24 Sup. Ct. 262, 48 L. Ed. 432, in which section 3220, Revised Statutes of the United States (now section 1316a, 40 Stat. 1145 [Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 5944]), was considered. None of the pleadings make a case coming within any exception mentioned in United States v. N. Y. & Cuba Mail Steamship Co., 200 U. S. 488, 26 Sup. Ct. 327, 50 L. Ed. 569.

The demurrer in each of the above-entitled cases is sustained.

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

Related

Swift & Company v. United States
144 F. Supp. 956 (Court of Claims, 1956)
Fox v. Edwards
287 F. 669 (Second Circuit, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 F. 1014, 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 1742, 1922 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/procter-gamble-co-v-united-states-ohsd-1922.