Filing with the Interstate Commerce Commission the book of rules
as to demurrage of the Car Service Association, of which the
railroad is a member, with a statement as to what its rates will
be,
held, in this case, to be a compliance with the
provisions of the Act to Regulate Commerce requiring filing of
tariff sheets, no objection having been taken as to form, and it
appearing that the documents were adequate to give notice and that
there was proof of posting.
Although cars billed for reconsignment may not have actually
reached the point named as destination, demurrage may attach for
the time held after reaching the point convenient to the belt line
for transfer where, under usual practice for many years, cars so
billed were held for reconsignment.
171 Ill.App. 302 affirmed.
The facts, which involve questions of filing tariff sheets under
the Act to Regulate Commerce and the right of the railroad company
to collect demurrage, are stated in the opinion.
Page 235 U. S. 374
Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court, by MR. CHIEF
JUSTICE WHITE:
The judgment which is under review awarded demurrage
Page 235 U. S. 375
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 demurrage 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,
223 U. S. 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
Page 235 U. S. 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.
