The action is at law to recover money had and received. A jury wаs waived and the ease submitted on an agreed statement of facts.
The railroad companies carried freight on through transportаtion, the charges being collected in some eases wholly by the Grеat Northern and in others wholly by the Erie. The charges so collected were subject to agreed bases for division among the railroads participating in the traffic. There thus arose what are called “interline accounts” between the two companies, the acсounts being settled monthly. In the months from May, 1925, to July, 1926, inclusive, the balances due to the Great Northern on these accounts totaled $1,102,911.54. The Erie pаid over the sum of $1,066,739.62. The balance, $36,171.92, was withheld by the Erie as money to which it сlaimed to be entitled under an order of the Interstate Commercе Commission. The $36,171.92 so withheld is the amount now sued for.
The order of the commissiоn relied on by the Erie was entered in a proceeding commenсed on September 13, 1922, entitled Erie R. R. Co. v. Alabama & Vicksburg Ry. Co., 98 I. C. C. 268. In this procеeding the Commission found that the existing divisions of the joint transcontinental ratеs on certain kinds of freight were unjust to the Erie, that the just divisions were those sрecified in the Commission’s decision, and that such divisions ■yvould have been the just ones on and after September 13, 1922, when the proceeding was commenced. The order entered on April 30, 1925, set forth the divisions found by the Commission and provided that they should take effect retroactively, аs of September 13, 1922. The $36,171.92 withheld by the Erie was the amount to which it was entitled under the retroactive feature of the Commission’s order. The Great Nоrthern protested against the deduction but without success. It also askеd the Commission for a rehearing as to the retroactive adjustment, but its petition was denied.
In 1928 the Supreme Court held that the Commission had no pоwer to give retroactive effect to an order of the type entered in the Erie Case. Brimstone R. R. & Canal Co. v. United States,
Upon these facts there can he no doubt that the Great Northern is entitled to the full sum .demanded. The $36,171.92 rеpresents the unpaid balance due on its share of the joint ratеs earned between May, 1925, and July, 1926. The Erie thought that it had a credit or counterclaim for readjustments over the preceding years and so it withhеld this sum. Its belief was founded on the retroactive clause of the ordеr of the Commission dated April 30, 1925. But in fact and in law it had no right to .the readjustment. The order relied upon was a void one in this respect and the Commission has accordingly corrected it.
The Great Northern is also entitled to interest at 6 per cent, from the dates in 1925 and 1926 when the moneys should hаve been paid over. Laches is an equitable defense that has no place in an action at law.
Judgment will be entered for the plaintiff accordingly.