DocketNumber： 44
Citation Numbers： 266 U.S. 92, 45 S. Ct. 24, 69 L. Ed. 182, 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2939
Judges： Brandeis
Filed Date： 10/27/1924
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
Supreme Court of United States.
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.
*93 MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS 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 certiorari 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.
Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co. , 36 S. Ct. 541 ( 1916 )
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Ward , 37 S. Ct. 617 ( 1917 )
Bonnell v. United Parcel Service, No. 315927 (Feb. 7, 1997) , 18 Conn. L. Rptr. 646 ( 1997 )
Comark, Inc. v. United Parcel Service, Inc. , 701 F. Supp. 641 ( 1988 )
Watts v. Southern Railway Co. , 139 S.C. 516 ( 1926 )
Gus Datillo Fruit Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad , 226 Ky. 813 ( 1928 )
Blamberg Bros. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. , 153 Md. 329 ( 1927 )
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Van Dusen Harrington Co. , 60 F.2d 394 ( 1932 )
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Chatters , 49 S. Ct. 329 ( 1929 )
Eastern Motor Express, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v.... , 247 F.2d 826 ( 1957 )
Insurance Co. Of North America v. Newtowne Mfg. Co. ... , 187 F.2d 675 ( 1951 )
United States v. Jess E. Francis , 320 F.2d 191 ( 1963 )
the-atchison-topeka-and-santa-fe-railway-company-a-corporation-v-sol , 307 F.2d 230 ( 1962 )
John Breuner Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co. , 108 Cal. App. 243 ( 1930 )
Falmouth Co-Operative Marketing Ass'n v. Pennsylvania ... , 237 Mich. 406 ( 1927 )
Pitman v. Yazoo & M. v. R. , 171 Miss. 799 ( 1935 )
Mobile O.R. Co. v. Jensen , 162 Miss. 741 ( 1932 )
Kirchner v. New York Central System , 87 Ohio App. 165 ( 1949 )
American Railway Express Co. v. Peninsula Produce Exchange , 148 Md. 465 ( 1925 )
Baker v. Prolerized Chicago Corporation , 335 F. Supp. 183 ( 1971 )
Miller v. Central Carolina Telephone Co. , 194 S.C. 327 ( 1940 )
McLemore v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad , 199 N.C. 264 ( 1930 )