Supreme Court of the United States, 1924

Davis v. Cornwell

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 21, 1924 · Brandeis

264 U.S. 560; 44 S. Ct. 410; 68 L. Ed. 848; 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2538 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. I. Parker Veazey, Jr., with whom Mr. F. G. Dorety was on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. George E. Hurd, with whom Mr. Edwin L. Norris was on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

64 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.

Strock v. So. Ry. &8212 Carolina Division (S.C. 1927)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Springer (7th Cir. 1949)
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1998)
Central Office Telephone, Inc. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (9th Cir. 1997)
National Beef Packing Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1959)
Holt Motor Co. v. Nicholson Universal S. S. Co. (D. Minn. 1944)
American Ry. Express Co. v. American Trust Co. (7th Cir. 1931)
Paulson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (D. Minn. 1986)
United States v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., Associated Air Transport, Inc. v. United States (5th Cir. 1960)
Tennessee Egg Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. (Tenn. 1924)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hardiman (Tenn. Ct. App. 1927)
Ting v. At&t (9th Cir. 2003)
Ting v. AT&T (9th Cir. 2003)
Telecom International America, Ltd. v. At & T Corp. (2d Cir. 2001)
Telecom International America, Ltd. v. AT & T Corp. (2d Cir. 2001)
Kanuco Technology Corp. v. Worldcom Network Services, Inc. (Tex. App. 1998)
Hull & Smith Horse Vans, Inc. v. Carras (Mich. Ct. App. 1985)
M.E. Denby v. Seaboard World Airlines (2d Cir. 1984)
Denby v. Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. (2d Cir. 1984)
Martin Imports v. Courier-Newsom Express, Inc. (7th Cir. 1978)
Sommer Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Panama Canal Company, Cross-Appellee (5th Cir. 1973)
Taylor County Sand Company, Incorporated v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. (5th Cir. 1971)

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

Mr. Justice Brandéis

delivered the opinion of the Court.

While the railroads were under federal control, Corn-well ordered of a station agent empty cars to be ready *561 October 2, 1918, for loading with cattle to be transported in interstate commerce as common carrier. This action against Davis, the agent of the President designated under Transportation Act, 1920, was brought in a state court of Montana to recover damages for failure to supply the cars. The plaintiff sued on an express contract to furnish them on the day named. It was not shown, or contended, that the published tariffs governing the contemplated shipment provided in terms for such a contract. The defendant asked for a directed verdict; the request was .refused; and the jury was instructed that, if the promise was made, the defendant was liable for its breach, even if the carrier was unable to furnish the cars. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff; the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the highest court of the State; and the case is here on writ of certiorari under § 237 of the Judicial Code as amended. 262 U. S. 740. Whether, under the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, the express promise to furnish cars was valid is the only question requiring decision.

The transportation service to be performed was that of common carrier under published tariffs, not a special service under a special contract, as in Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Maucher, 248 U. S. 359. The agent’s promise that the cars would be available on the day named was introduced to establish an absolute obligation to supply the cars, not as evidence that the shipper had given due notice of the time when the cars would be needed, or as evidence that the carrier had not made reasonable efforts to supply the cars. The obligation of the common carrier implied in the tariff is to use diligence to provide, upon reasonable notice, cars for loading at the time desired. A contract to furnish cars on a day certain imposes a greater obligation than that implied in the tariff. For, under the contract, proof of due diligence would not excuse failure to perform,

*562 Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. S. 155, settled that a special contract to transport a car by a particular train, or on a particular day, is illegal, when not provided for in the tariff. That the thing contracted for in this case was a service preliminary to the loading is not a difference of legal significance. The contract to supply cars for loading on a day named provides for a special advantage to the particular shipper, as much as a contract to expedite the cars when loaded. It was not necessary to prove that a preference resulted in fact. The assumption by the carrier of the additional obligation was necessarily a preference. The objection is not only lack of authority in the station agent. The paramount requirement that tariff provisions be strictly adhered to, so that shippers may receive equal treatment, presents an insuperable obstacle to recovery. 1

Beversed.

Compare Saitta & Jones v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 179 N. Y. S. 471; Underwood v. Hines, 222 S. W. (Mo.) 1037; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Beatty, 42 Okla. 528, 533, 534. Of the cases relied upon by respondent, Wood v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 68 Iowa, 491; and Harrison v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 74 Mo. 364, arose before the enactment of the Act to Regulate Commerce; Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236; Nichols v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co., 24 Utah, 83; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Racer, 10 Ind. App. 503; Mathis v. Southern Ry. Co., 65 S. Car. 271; International & Great Northern R. R. Co. v. Young, 28 S. W. (Tex. C. A.) 819; Outland v. Railroad Co., 134 N. C. 350; Chattanooga Southern R. R. Co. v. Thompson, 133 Ga. 127; Midland Valley R. R. Co. v. Hoffman Coal Co., 91 Ark. 180; and Oregon R. R. & Nav. Co. v. Dumas, 181 Fed. 781, were decided after the enactment of the Act to Regulate Commerce, but before the decision of the Kirby Case (1912); McNeer, Talbott & Johnson v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 76 W. Va. 803, and Stewart v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 172 Iowa, 313, were decided after the Kirby Case; but the rule there declared appears not to have been called to the attention of the court. Clark v. Ulster & Delaware R. R. Co., 189 N. Y. 93; Texas Midland R. R. v. O’Kelley, 203 S. W. (Tex. C. A.) 152, dealt with intrastate shipments.

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