Supreme Court of the United States, 1914

Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. v. Chicago & Erie Railroad

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 14, 1914 · White

235 U.S. 371; 35 S. Ct. 131; 59 L. Ed. 275; 1914 U.S. LEXIS 978 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Henry T. Martin, with whom Mr. Edward D. Pomeroy was on the brief, for plaintiff in error:, Mr. Edward W. Rawlins, with whom Mr. William J. ■ Calhoun and Mr. Will H. Lyford were on the brief, for defendant in error:

Cases that cite this one

35 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994)
Security Services, Inc. v. Transportation, Inc. (6th Cir. 1993)
Security Services, Inc. v. P-Y Transportation, Inc. (6th Cir. 1993)
In re Pennsylvania Title Insurance Antitrust Litigation (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 2009)
Fed. Carr. Cas. P 84,020 in Re Olympia Holding Corporation, Debtors. Lloyd T. Whitaker v. Frito-Lay, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (11th Cir. 1996)
Jeff MacLeod Trustee for Bgr Transportation, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission United States of America (D.C. Cir. 1995)
Overland Express, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Jasper Wyman & Son, Household Goods Carriers' Bureau, Inc., the Kroger Co., Intervenors (D.C. Cir. 1993)
Brizendine v. Cotter & Company (7th Cir. 1993)
Brizendine v. Cotter (7th Cir. 1993)
Freightcor Services, Inc., Debtor-In-Possession v. Vitro Packaging, Inc. (5th Cir. 1992)
Lovett v. Wonderoast (In re Transportation Systems International, Inc.) (D. Minn. 1992)
Security Services, Inc. v. Cramer Products, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1992)
American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1988)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (D.C. Cir. 1988)
Genstar Chemical Ltd. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (D.C. Cir. 1981)
Western Oil & Fuel Co. v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co. (8th Cir. 1954)
Wisconsin-Michigan Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission (Two Cases) (7th Cir. 1952)
General American Transp. Corp. v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co (7th Cir. 1951)
Southeastern Land Co. v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1936)
Interstate Commerce Commission v. American Trucking Associations (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
McPherson v. Pacific Power & Light Co. (Or. 1956)
Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. International Milling Co. (8th Cir. 1930)
Raleigh Smokeless Fuel Co. v. Virginian Ry. Co. (4th Cir. 1930)
Dunnegan v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad (Iowa 1926)

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

Memorandum opinion by direction of the court by

Mr. Chief Justice White.

The judgment which is under review awarded demur- *375 rage 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 *376 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.

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