BERWIND-WHITE COAL MINING COMPANY
v.
CHICAGO AND ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1914-12-14
No. 92
235 U.S. 371 Supreme Court of the United States (1914) Caution
Also reported at: 59 L. Ed. 275 · 35 S. Ct. 131 · 1914 U.S. LEXIS 978 · SCDB 1914-038
Cited by 47 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

Berwind-White Coal Mining Company shipped coal by railroad from West Virginia to Chicago for reconsignment, and the railroad assessed demurrage charges, which Berwind-White challenged as violating the Interstate Commerce Act. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the railroad had complied with tariff filing requirements through adequate notice to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the public, and that the demurrage charges were properly assessed even though the cars were held at storage tracks outside Chicago's center, consistent with the railroad's longstanding twenty-year practice.

© 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 judgment which is under review awarded demurrage on carloads of coal shipped by the plaintiff in error from West Virginia to Chicago, there to be reconsigned. (171 Ill. App. 302.) There are only two alleged Federal' contentions:

1. That allowing the demurrage conflicted with the Act to Regulate Commerce because no tariff on the subject was filed or published. The fact is that the railroad had complied with the law as to filing tariff sheets and had also long . before the time in question filed a book of rules of the Chicago Car Service Association, of which it was a member, relating to liability for demurrage and a few days after had written the Commission a letter stating that the de-' murrage charge would be one dollar per day. The argument is that such documents were not sufficiently formal to comply with the law and hence afforded no ground for allowing demurrage. But the contention is without merit. The documents were received and placed on file by the Commission without any objection whatever as to their form and it is certain that as a matter of fact they were adequate to give notice. Equally without merit is the insistence that there was no proof that the documents were posted for public inspection. Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449; Kansas City So. Ry. v. Albers Comm. Co., 223 U. S. 573, 594; United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599.

2. Conceding that a tariff concerning demurrage was filed, it is insisted it only authorized demurrage at destination and the cars never reached, their destination, but were held at a place outside of Chicago. The facts are these: The storage tracks of the railroad for cars billed to Chicago for reconsignment were at Hammond, Indiana, a considerable distance from the terminals of the company nearer the center of the city, but were convenient to the belt line by which cars could be transferred to any desired new destination, and the holding on such tracks of cars consigned as were those in question was in accordance with a practice which had existed for more than twenty years. Under these circumstances the contention is so wholly wanting in foundation as in fact to be frivolous.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

  • Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 467 U.S. 354 (U.S. 1984)
    …ings of the Commission east further doubt on the proposition that § 10762(e) authorizes the Commission to nullify any effective tariff containing either [*364] substantive or formal defects. In Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. Co., 235 U. S. 371 (1914), and again in Davis v. Portland Seed Co., 264 U. S. 403 (1924), we stressed the importance of common carriers’ being able to rely on effective tariffs on file with the Commission. As the Commission itself once recognized, these cases “strongl…
  • Genstar Chem. Ltd. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States, 665 F.2d 1304 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
    …ely because of some element of substantive unlawfulness in the rate, Davis v. Portland Seed Co., 264 U.S. 403, 44 S.Ct. 380, 68 L.Ed. 762 (1924), or some irregularity in the tariff filing formalities, Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & E.R., 235 U.S. 371, 35 S.Ct. 131, 59 L.Ed. 275 (1914). The principle in these cases is that where the shipper has been charged no more than the rate reflected in the tariff on file, the remedy for any unlawfulness or irregularity is measured not by looking to some o…
  • Wisconsin-Michigain Power Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n (two cases), 197 F.2d 472 (7th Cir. 1952)
    …Commission treated the company’s letter of explanation as a supplement to the rate schedules and placed the rates on file. This relieved the company of any violation growing out of charging the lower rate, Berwind-White Co. v. Chicago & Erie R. R., 235 U.S. 371, 35 S.Ct. 131, 59 L.Ed. 275, and constituted, we think, undisputed evidence that the company understood that its actions in this respect constituted part of its filed rates. We think also that the provision for a reserve fund to protect wholesale p…

Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (23 total)

View all 23 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw