Home/Court of Claims/Reading Co. v. United States

Reading Co. v. United States

156 Ct. Cl. 1, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 226, 1962 WL 9285
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 12, 1962
DocketNos. 579-52 and 149-59
StatusPublished

This text of 156 Ct. Cl. 1 (Reading Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reading Co. v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 1, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 226, 1962 WL 9285 (cc 1962).

Opinion

IíAramoRe, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action by plaintiff to recover amounts allegedly due it for transportation services rendered to defendant.

Two cases are here involved and these cases were tried together since they involve the same issue, which is the interpretation of tariff provisions to determine the proper class ratings to be used in computing plaintiff’s freight charges. The issues to be resolved cover only a part of the claim set forth in the petition in these two cases. With respect to case number 579-52, the bills involved are:

Bill number Bill of lading number Amount claimed
47954 WV-4136698 $150.74
48490 WV-7196993 94.38
WV-7197003 94.38
WV-7197291 124.54
WV-7197053 164.19
48533 WV-7191105 66.49
49139 WV-7204612 59.88
49919 WV-8871764 138.40
WV-8871772 87.70
WV-8871771 87.70
WV-8871770 '68.80
WV-8871765 88.80
59588 WV-8871766 86.40
60432 WW-613737 141.11
$1,453.51

With respect to case number 149-59, the bills involved are:

Bill number Bill of lading number Amount claimed
44678 $135.08
49821-B WW-1830342 129.80
52100-C 197.64
28559-E WQ-4728254 212.00
WQ-4728267 284.00
WQ-4728280 232.00
WQ-4728239 212.66
WQ-4728246 297.00
WOr-4728268 368.44
WQ-4728286 59.55
WQ-4728310 39.33
WQ-4728321 52.00
$2,271.50

[3]*3The parties have agreed that the remaining bills fall in three categories and are to be disposed of as follows:

(a) Category No. 1 covers a gronp of bills which involve the same issue as was decided in Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. United States, 136 Ct. Cl. 1, and the net amount due plaintiff on such bills in docket number 579-52 is the sum of $1,048.27, and in docket number 149-59 is the sum of $3,371.30. Judgment for these amounts is to be entered for plaintiff when the other issues involved in the petitions have been disposed of to the extent that judgment can be entered on all of plaintiff’s claims;

(b) Category No. 2 covers a group of bills which present the same issue as is involved in Boston and Maine Railway Co. v. United States, No. 186-52, which has been referred to the Interstate Commerce Commission for determination, and the parties have agreed that such bills are to be disposed of on the basis of the final judgment rendered in that case;

(c) Category No. 3 covers a group of bills which present the same issue as is involved in Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. United States, No. 308-54, which has also been referred to the Interstate Commerce Commission for its determination, and the parties have agreed that such bills are to be disposed of on the basis of the final judgment in that case.

The facts are these: Plaintiff, a common carrier by railroad, transported automobile bodies from and to various points in the United States for defendant during the years 1942 to 1952. The plaintiff submitted freight bills to the defendant and was paid for the transportation services rendered. On a postaudit of the bills by the General Accounting Office, it was determined that plaintiff had been overpaid. Consequently, a deduction of the amount of alleged overpayments was made from other bills due the plaintiff. This suit resulted in which plaintiff sues to recover said amounts.

For the purpose of the issue now before the court, the parties have agreed that Bill of Lading WV-5878950 shall be representative of all the shipments involved. On said bill of lading, defendant tendered to plaintiff a carload shipment of freight automobile bodies for movement [4]*4from Allentown, Pennsylvania, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The shipment weighed 67,340 pounds and was loaded on an open 52-foot car, although the defendant ordered a 46-foot car. However, for the purpose of these suits, the parties have agreed that the charges should be computed on the basis of the size of the car actually used.

In determining the rate to be charged for this shipment, plaintiff relied on the minimum weight and rating in Consolidated Freight Classification No. 16 and on Rule 34. Item 2885 of Consolidated Freight Classification No. 16 provided for a carload rating of Class 4 for the shipment of boxed automobile bodies with a carload minimum weight of 20,000 pounds, subject to Rule 34. Sections 5 and 7 of Rule 34 read as follows:

Section 5. When articles shown in the Classification, exceptions thereto or in tariffs governed thereby, subject to provisions of this Rule by specific reference to number thereof, or to the letter “R”, are loaded on open cars 36 feet 6 inches or less in length, they shall be charged at minimum CL weights specified therefor in separate descriptions of articles. Except as provided in Section 6, when such articles are loaded on cars exceeding 36 feet 6 inches in length, minimum CL weights to be charged shall be as provided in Section 8. Weight in excess of minimum weight provided for in this Rule must be charged for.
* * # % #
Section 7. Except when furnished by carrier in place of shorter open car ordered, if an open car over 36 feet 6 inches in length is used by shipper for loading articles subject to Rule 34, without previous order having been placed by shipper with carrier for car of such size, minimum weight shall be that fixed for car used.

Section 8 of Rule 34 contains a table showing minimum carload weights applicable on articles made subject to Rule 34 in open cars. However, both plaintiff and defendant used the actual weight in computing the charge. Under plaintiff’s method of computation, a total charge of $181.82 was made for the shipment under Bill of Lading WV-5878950.

The defendant rejected plaintiff’s charges based upon Consolidated Freight Classification No. 16, and in so doing relied [5]*5on the rating in Exceptions Tariff 90-J and Item 2250 thereof. Item 2250, as set forth in finding 12, contains no provision for a minimum weight and rating for shipments of automobile bodies in cars exceeding 50 feet 6 inches in length. This gives rise to the issue before us since, as previously stated, the shipment here involved was made on a 52-foot car.

The parties are in agreement that the classification rating would apply if the rating in the exceptions tariff is inapplicable. Thus the issue is whether the rating in the exceptions tariff applies.

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

Related

Bolin Drive-A-Way Co., a Corporation v. United States
283 F.2d 697 (Court of Claims, 1960)
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States
287 F.2d 593 (Court of Claims, 1961)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. United States
140 F. Supp. 569 (Court of Claims, 1956)
Winston-Salem Southbound Railway Co. v. United States
152 F. Supp. 245 (Court of Claims, 1957)
Bolin Drive-a-Way Co. v. United States
151 Ct. Cl. 164 (Court of Claims, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
156 Ct. Cl. 1, 1962 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 226, 1962 WL 9285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reading-co-v-united-states-cc-1962.