*1 TERM, O.] Reid
REID and BEAM v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. 1908). December,
(Filed 16 Regular Penalty Stations —Refusal of Carriers Statutes — Goods — Shipment. Accept to agent receive, depot, freight, by A refusal carrier’s its the charges transportation therefor, for a and destined regular siding, wаs not the carrier's which was and pre- subjects station, wrongful, and carrier to the by Revisal, ground is on the scribed sec. whеn the refusal was, given destination that did not know where the 'freight appears and ordinarily shipped that he could аscertained way out to bills made on the road some distant therefrom. station carrier’s two miles 2. Same —Evidencе. transportation charges are of its not know where refused given carrier’s given appears destination the name slightly appearing very changed Rail- from that on the “Official carrier; Shipping fact used Guide Guide” first, agent, place of that another promptly who afterwards took of learned the location the destination shipment, of is evidence that bill first could have ascertained rate destination been him, given for the an action frоm information by Revisal, prescribed sec. 2631. Accept Ship- Penalty of Statutes —Refusal 3. Carriers Goods — Law. ment —Commеrce Clause —Constitutional wrong- penalty arising from the an interstate of carrier’s ful refusal Fed- no to the Commerсe Clause bears relation freight is Constitution, before accrues eral accepted for the transportation. Ship- Accept Penalty Statutes —Refusal 4. Carriers Goods — “Party Aggrieved.” ment — “party aggrieved,” shipper and is the penalty prescribed one entitled sue for wrongful of the carrier’s refusal which from the arises them for Term,- Ward, J., Aрril a jury," tried ActioN Plaintiff appealed. of. Rutherford. R; Reid v.
Edwards & Elliott plaintiffs. *2 W. B. Rodman Gallert & Oarson for defendant. O. J. Action for 2631, Clare, for refusal to “rеceive for a carload of' transportation” 2 tendered to defendant’s Rutherfordton, for Tenn. July, shipment Scоttsville, The testified that he plaintiff tendered prepayment on repeatedly, asked that the succeeding days, car shipped, offered prepay freight. to. not ship said know Where Scottsville nor the rate. The told the рlaintiff Scottsville was ageiit a near which is Knoxville, station on defendant’s On road. 11 new came to July, he had talk' Rutherfоrdton, with about the carload of plaintiff and on July, 18 wired an to the division same inquiry who the freight agent, wired back the 19 ratе, and the car was sent forward on July. appeared by testimony defendant’s witnesses that Scottville, station, instead оf is Scottsville, name. of.the Knoxville, that it is a a few miles from' a branch siding on sta- operated by defendant, that it is not tiоn, but usually shipped way-bills out to a station two miles On regular, away. the. July, “Scottsville, defendant the car on shipp’ed wаy-bill Tenn.,” the freight “Scottsville, -The name being prepaid. Tenn.,” does not in the “Official appear Guide,” Railway nor in thе Guide” used railroad “Shipping companies.
The fact that on 18 new learned July, agent promptly where Scottville, Tenn., was, and the a bill off the carload the next evidence that day, the rate and destination could have bеen ascertained n other 2 July.
The defendant contends, however, that Révisal, a. for for giving, penalty refusing shipment is uncоnstitutional when the is to be shipped.into, another State. But for “refusing shipment” TERM, 425- N. C.] R.R. Reid v. not within this It is part
an act done State. whоlly our statute This applies. act held v. R. by Avery, Bagg shipment- detained another it for State, to' point negligently herein рrecise point five days shipping. R., 135 N. held in Currie v.
raised section, failing refusing giving á carload of lumber, unconsti interferencе with interstáte when tutional-as offered to a in another lumber was State. Walker, J., in cases cited and reaffirmed Both these were atC., p. Walker *3 J., Brown, R., 141 C., held,
In N. it was v. Twitty in held the refused freight storage, bill of because did not know lading freight give “a this was refusal tо rates, is liable to The Court “The fact that the said,
2631.” agent did excuse. is his know rates is no duty know and ascer At least, them. hе could readily telegraphed bill of need not have tained, lading give that account.” Walker, R., was
In Harrill v. R. failure hеld, imposing inter was valid, deliver though incurred after the transporta There state. penalty, trans had ceased. accrued tion Here before.the was even received had and before the begun, portation and accepted party plaintiff.’
The owner proper was no till after the bill of given. There well is now State has in such cases That the authority R. R. v. Jacob Clause, Cooke, settled. Commerce citing son, other cases. 179 U.
Reid The faсt that Scottville was anot station at which is no valid excuse kept for not receiving shingles. goods place where there a side-track, but no or depot platform carrier, this known to the it has been held parties, that leаving car of goods upon side-track good delivery, is. relieves from further 4 Elliott responsibility. the'company Railroаds, sec. That a was or was not depot maintained at Scottville in no affected the right have their Rutherfordton when tendered. Narville v. R. L. 271; 67 R. A., Alexander v. R. of nonsuit is judgment Reversed.
BnowN, J., I concur concurring: case back sending for trial in order that the facts be found. reserve may to determine for right myself whether in case one penalty, should be is a burden imрosed, interstate upon case the cause shall come back a final upon judgment against the defendant.
As I read the record the defendant would liable, all, dollars, the only for one penalty imposed as there is оnly, one distinct proof tender and refusal. That matter, however, will be made clearer on a'nother trial.
As the admit lost delay they nothing shipping to recover seven permitted they hundred and dollars as under statute, penalties should be inclined to hold that such excessive could impost not be sustained, the decisions of the Supreme of the United States Houston & T. R. R. v. C. Mays, U. and McNeil U. S.,