Supreme Court of the United States, 1924

Davis v. Henderson

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 27, 1924 · Brandeis

266 U.S. 92; 45 S. Ct. 24; 69 L. Ed. 182; 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2939 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. A. A. McLaughlin, Mr. Thomas B. Pryor and Mr. Vincent M. Miles, for plaintiff in error and petitioner., No brief filed for defendant in error and respondent.

Cases that cite this one

49 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Advamtel, LLC v. at & T Corp. (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2000)
United Video Buyers Ass'n v. North Penn Transfer, Inc. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1986)
Empire Box Corp. of Stroudsburg v. Delaware, L. & W. R. (2d Cir. 1948)
William A. Cordingley v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. (9th Cir. 1977)
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Springer (7th Cir. 1949)
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Van Dusen Harrington Co. (8th Cir. 1932)
Mellon v. ERB (9th Cir. 1926)
Bonnell v. United Parcel Service, No. 315927 (Feb. 7, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. City of Pensacola (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 1995)
Comark, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1988)
United Video Buyers Ass'n v. North Penn Transfer, Inc. (N.J. 1987)
Capitol Transportation, Inc. v. United States of America and Federal Maritime Commission, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Intervenors (1st Cir. 1979)
Sommer Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Panama Canal Company, Cross-Appellee (5th Cir. 1973)
Baker v. Prolerized Chicago Corporation (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1971)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Ready-Mix Concrete, Inc. (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1971)
United States v. Jess E. Francis (9th Cir. 1963)
The Atchison, Topeka And Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sol Bouziden (10th Cir. 1962)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Bouziden (10th Cir. 1962)
North Coast Manufacturing Corp. v. Union Pacific Railroad (District Court, D. Oregon 1960)
Union Pacific Railroad v. Corneli Seed Co. (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 1958)
Eastern Motor Express, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. A. Maschmeijer, Jr., Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Appellant (2d Cir. 1957)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. of Texas v. Noble (Tex. App. 1954)
Insurance Co. Of North America v. Newtowne Mfg. Co. Insurance Co. Of North America v. Holland Transp. Co., Inc (1st Cir. 1951)
Christensen v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. (8th Cir. 1950)
Southern Newspapers, Inc. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (Ark. 1950)

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

*93 Mr. Justice Brandéis

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Henderson, a shipper of cattle, brought this suit in a state court of Arkansas against an interstate carrier then under federal control. The cause of action alleged was failure to furnish a car within a reasonable time after notice. The carrier defended on the ground that the shipper had not complied with a rule, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and contained in its tariff, which provided that orders for cars must be placed with the local agent in writing. Written notice was not given. The plaintiff was permitted to testify that he had notified the station agent orally and that the latter had accepted his oral notice. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that the shipper could not recover without proving a notice in writing. Exceptions were duly taken. The plaintiff got the verdict; and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the highest court of the State. 157 Ark. 43. The carrier brought this writ of error; and, also, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, consideration of which was postponed until the hearing on the writ of error. The former must be dismissed. Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, §2, 39 Stat. 726. The writ of cer-tiorari is now granted.

There is no claim that the rule requiring written notice was void. The contention is that the rule was waived. It could not be. The transportation service to be performed was that of common carrier under published tariffs. The rule was a part of the tariff. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 197; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383, 388; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560, 562.

Writ of Error dismissed.

Writ of Certiorari granted.

Judgment reversed.

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