U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1929

Strawberry Growers' Selling Co. v. American Ry. Express Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 5, 1929 · Bryan, Foster, Grubb

31 F.2d 947; 1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 3603 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Chas. T. Madison, of New Orleans, La., and W. S. Rownd, of Hammond, La., for plaintiff in error., Selim B. Lemle, of New Orleans, La. (A. M. Hartung, of New York City, and Hunter C. Leake and Lemle, Moreno & Lemle, all of New Orleans, La., on tbe brief), for defendant in error.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Sanantex Oil Co. v. Thompson (Tex. App. 1955)
Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. Paup (5th Cir. 1931)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This was a suit to collect an undercharge in express rates upon interstate shipments of strawberries. It was brought more than two years, but less than three years, after the shipments were made.

The defenses were: (1) Prescription of two years under the Louisiana statute; and (2) estoppel, in that appellant had settled with the farmers whom it represented upon-the basis of the rates charged and collected as the shipments were made.

As these were interstate shipments, the state statute of prescription does not apply. Suit within three years from the time the cause of action accrued is authorized by act of Congress. USCA tit. 49, § 16, par. 3(a).

The carrier was bound to collect the legal rate, and a shipper who has paid less cannot invoke the principle of estoppel. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Pink, 250 U. S.. 577, 40 S. Ct. 27, 63 L. Ed. 1151.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.