Union Pacific Railroad v. United States

184 Ct. Cl. 785, 1968 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 133, 1968 WL 9174
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJune 14, 1968
DocketNo. 423-65
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 184 Ct. Cl. 785 (Union Pacific Railroad 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
Union Pacific Railroad v. United States, 184 Ct. Cl. 785, 1968 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 133, 1968 WL 9174 (cc 1968).

Opinion

Pee Curiam:

Tbis case was referred to Trial Commissioner James F. Davis with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law under the order of reference and Eule 57 (a). The commissioner has done so in an opinion and report filed on April 1,1968. Defendant filed notice of intention to except to the commissioner’s report on May 1, 1968 and on May 15, 1968 filed a motion to withdraw its notice of intention to except wherein it requested that the court adopt the commissioner’s opinion and enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $9,086.47. On May 16,1968 the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment pursuant to the commissioner’s report. Since the court agrees with the commissioner’s findings, opinion and recommended conclusion of law, as hereinafter set forth, it grants the motions of the parties and hereby adopts the commissioner’s findings, opinion and recommended conclusion of law as the basis for its judgment in this case without oral argument. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover and judgment is entered for plaintiff in the sum of $9,086.47.

OPINION OP COMMISSIONER

Davis, Commissioner: The issue in this case is the proper freight charges for numerous shipments of trailers transported by plaintiff for defendant from 1961 to 1964. The [787]*787trailers are described in Government bills of lading as “freight trailers.” They are two-wheel, %- or 1%-ton trailers used by the Army to haul ammunition or other cargo.

Plaintiff contends the proper freight charges are at the class rate provided under the listing “farm or freight carts, trucks, trailers or wagons, noibn [not otherwise indexed by name] * * * horse-drawn, or trailer” in Item 92900 of Uniform Freight Classification No. 6.

Defendant contends the proper charges should be at the exception rating listed under the heading “agricultural implements * * * and other articles” which includes, among other things, “farm carts, trucks, trailers or wagons, horse drawn or trailer” in Item 875 of Trunk Line-Central Territory Railroads Tariff Bureau, Freight Tariff E/W-2010-F, Classification Exceptions and General Commodity Tariff, and in Item 610 of Western Trunk Lines, Freight Tariff W/S-2001-G, Classification Exceptions and General Commodity Tariff. Defendant concedes that if the exception ratings it urges as applicable do not apply, then the class rates applied by plaintiff do. Uniform Freight Classification No. 6 and both exception tariffs, including their respective indexes, are set out in pertinent part in the findings of fact.1

Defendant concedes that “freight trailers,” as such, are not expressly named in the exception tariffs. It contends, however, that the term “other articles” in the phrase “agricultural implements * * * and other articles” includes within its scope the freight trailers here in issue because the word “farm” in “farm carts, trucks, trailers or wagons * * *” in the exception tariffs modifies only “carts” and does not “clearly modify” “trucks, trailers or wagons * * *.” Defendant agrees that if “farm” modifies “trailers” in “trucks, trailers or wagons,” plaintiff will prevail since defendant’s trailers are not “farm trailers.”

Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that under accepted rules of tariff construction, the adjective “farm” modifies all subsequent nouns and therefore, the exception tariffs here [788]*788must be construed to read “farm carts, farm, trucks, farm trailers or farm wagons.” Plaintiff also notes that exception tariffs are to be strictly construed and that only articles clearly embraced within the description can be deemed removed from the classification, citing Stevens Bros. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 225 L.C.C. 556, 557 (1937).

To support its position, plaintiff at trial put into evidence history of the pertinent classification and exception tariffs (findings 10 and 12), the index to the classification and exception tariffs in issue (findings 5 to 7), and a letter in. 1960 from a military shipper to the railroad freight classification committees (finding 11) from the content of which plaintiff would infer that “farm trailers” and “freight trailers” are recognized for tariff purposes as separate and distinct goods.

Construction of railroad tariffs is a question of law not different in character from construction of any other documents in dispute. United States v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co., 194 F. 2d 777 (5th Cir. 1952). Strained and unnatural construction is not permitted. Willard Storage Battery Co. v. Associated Transport, Inc., 48 M.C.C. 284, 287 (1948). Review of all the evidence, particularly the history of pertinent tariffs since 1919, leaves no doubt but that “farm” modifies “trailers” in the phrase in issue. The phrase was put in the exception tariff in 1944, exactly as it appeared in the then-applicable consolidated freight classification. Defendant agrees that in similar provisions of later uniform freight classifications, including Item 92900 of Uniform Freight Classification No. 6 here in issue, “farm” modifies all the subsequent nouns. It would strain credulity to accept the proposition that the drafters of the exception tariff bodily transferred a phrase from one tariff to another and intended it to be given a totally different construction. This point is buttressed by the fact that, while the index to the uniform freight classification lists “trailers, farm” and “trailers, freight” as goods included under Item 92900, the index to the exception tariffs lists only “trailers, farm.” This is persuasive evidence that it was not the intent of the exception tariff drafters to include “freight trailers” within the scope of “other articles,” particularly in view of the requirement of the Interstate Com[789]*789merce Commission that tariff indexes be “complete” and list “all articles upon which commodity rates” are to apply. (Finding 8.) Indeed, even defendant’s expert witness admitted at trial that in view of the exception tariff index listing “trailers, farm,” it is “fair to assume” that “farm” modifies “trailers” in the phrase in issue.

Defendant would make much of the fact that one of plaintiff’s witnesses admitted some items covered by the exception tariff may not be included in the index. While this may at times be true, it would appear to be contrary to I.C.C. rules. In any event, the index here did list certain goods under the heading “freight,” <?.y., “freight bodies,” “freight carts, logging,” “freight dump wagons,” etc. (findings 6 and 7), but did not list “freight trailers.” Also the index listed “trailers, farm” and “trailers, house” but not “trailers, freight.” If freight trailers were intended to be embraced by “other articles,” it would seem the index would reflect this intention, particularly since other “freight” goods are expressly indexed.

Finally, it should be noted that defendant agrees Item 92900 of Uniform Freight Classification No. 6 should be construed so that “farm” and “freight,” though appearing but once in the phrase, modify each of “carts,” “trucks,” “trailers,” and “wagons.” In fact it is on this basis that defendant concedes Item 92900 applies if the exception tariffs do not. Yet defendant would not so construe the exception tariff despite its common genesis with Item 92900 as shown by the tariff history. Defendant cannot have it both ways, and the evidence is compelling that plaintiff’s interpretation is correct.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
184 Ct. Cl. 785, 1968 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 133, 1968 WL 9174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-pacific-railroad-v-united-states-cc-1968.