ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
HENDERSON ELEVATOR COMPANY

U.S. | 1913-01-06
No. 105
226 U.S. 441 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Caution
Also reported at: 57 L. Ed. 290 · 33 S. Ct. 176 · SCDB 1912-043 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2246
Cited by 36 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Illinois Central Railroad Company quoted an incorrect freight rate to the Henderson Elevator Company for corn shipment in interstate commerce, charging 10 cents per hundred pounds instead of the published tariff rate of 13.5 cents, resulting in a loss to Henderson. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment against the railroad, holding that under the Interstate Commerce Act, a railroad's failure to post its tariff or quote an erroneous rate does not create liability to a shipper who relied on the incorrect quotation.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White.

Memorandum opinion, by direction of the court, by

Mr. Chief Justice White.

The Henderson Elevator Company, defendant in error, as plaintiff below brought this action to recover damages from the Railroad Company, the plaintiff in error, because of a loss alleged to have been sustained by an erroneous -quotation by the agent of -the Railroad Company of the freight rate on corn shipped in interstate commerce from the station of the Railroad Company at Henderson, Kentucky. A rate of 10 cents per hundred pounds was quoted by the agent when in fact the rate as fixed by the published tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce' Commission and effective at the time was 13j/¿> cents per hundred pounds. On the trial before a"jury the court instructed that if the loss sustained by the plaintiff "was occasioned and brought about by defendant’s failure to have posted or on file in its office in Henderson, Kentucky, its freight tariff rate in question and by reason of any erroneous quotation of. defendant of its freight rate from and to the points in question, of which plaintiff com plains, . . .” there should be a verdict for the plaintiff. A verdict having been rendered for the plaintiff in accordance with this instruction and the judgment entered thereon having been subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky (138 Kentucky, 220), this writ of error was sued out.

It is to us clear that the action of the court below in affirming the judgment of the trial court and the reasons upon which that action was based were in conflict with the rulings of this court interpreting and applying the Act to Regulate Commerce. New York Cent. R. R. v. United States (No. 2), 212 U. S. 500, 504; Texas & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242; Gulf Railroad Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98. That the failure to post does not prevent the case from being controlled by the settled rule established by the cases referred to is now beyond question. Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Albers Comm. Co., 223 U. S. 573, 594 (a).

Reversed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (14 total)

  • Corp. de Gestion Ste-Foy, Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 385 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
    …mer of a common carrier has expended non-refundable moneys out-of-pocket because of an improper undercharge, but was nonetheless required thereafter to pay the carrier the full amount. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U.S. 441, 33 S.Ct. 176, 57 L.Ed. 290 (1913); Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Mugg & Dryden, 202 U.S. 242, 26 S.Ct. 628, 50 L.Ed. 1011 (1906); Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. J. J. Case Plow Works, 173 Wis. 237, 180 N.W. 846 (1921). The sole authority cited by the plaintiff on the est…
  • Brandon v. Lichty, 133 Fla. 520 (Fla. 1938)
    …nterstate Commerce Commission for the service rendered.” Also see Sou. R. Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632, 60 L. [*525] Ed. 836; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 681; I. C. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 441, 57 L. Ed. 290. It follows that the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial upon the sole issue of the assessment of damages. So ordered. Reversed and remanded. Whitfield, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., not participati…
  • Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1915)
    …Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 445; Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. [*98] 56, 81; N. Y. C. & H. R. R. v. United States, 212 U. S. 500, 504; Chicago & Alton R. R. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, 166; Illinois Central R. R. v. Henderson Co., 226 U. S. 441; Kansas Southern Rwy. v. Carl, 227 U. S. 639, 653; Pennsylvania R. R. v. International Coal Co., 230 U. S. 184, 197; Boston & Maine R. R. v. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 110-113; George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 236 U. S. 278, 284. In the Mugg C…

Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (17 total)

View all 17 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw