Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1885-05-14
The Morris Case.

Mr.. EditOr.-I notice in your issue of May
eth, statement of the above case, wherein
1t is stated: 1.-THE plaintiff claimed that a car
load meant all that was loaded on a car,
without regard to the weight, whether 3d.,
900, 10000, 10000, or any other weight"
This, think, is stating his claim too broadly.
What he did claim is, that, as Sec. S34, Rev.
Stat, prescribes the freight chargable on a
car load of lumber (being $3.50 from Vulcan
Switch, where his lumber was shipped, to
st. Louis), and as, under Sec. S35, it was OPP
tional with the Railroad Company to receive
any car load, or to receive 1t if it was over
loaded, therefore it was the duty of the Rail-
road Company to determine, before receiving
it, whether it was properly loaded or not;
and if the Company failed to exercise that
discretion, and, receiving the car, afterwards
did charge higher rate, then the Railroad
Company become liable for three times the
amount charged i'm excess of $3.50, regard
less of weight. The Railroad Company, on
the other hand, claimed that they had adopt
ed certain regulations, which had become a
universal custom, limiting the weight of a
car load to 10000 pounds, and the court in
structed the jury on this issue. From the
verdict of the jury it is evident that they did
not believe that such universal custom was
proven to exist.
In support of the custom, the Railroad
Company contended that the law regulating
Railroad charges, which was passed in 1875,
when this regulation existed, did affirm and
legalize the custom; and against this claim,
Mr.. Morris held that, as the purpose of the
law was to protect shippers, it was but fair
to presume that the legislature, in passing
the act, intended to prevent, in the future,
the very mischief caused by this arbitrary
regulation of the Railroad Company Against
this the Railroad Company commended that
Mr. Norris construction of the law would
allow the Railroad Company to discriminate
in favor of its friends: but this cannot be
successfully maintained, for Sec. S21 prohib-
its such discrimination, both in chargessand
in facilities, for transportation, by abatement,
drawback, or otherwise.
A large number of freight bills paid by
Mr.. Morris were given in evidence, many of
which simply charged for "a car of lumber"
carrying in weight from 10000 pounds up
wards. Contrary evidence was produced by
the Railroad Company, showing that it was
known that the Company claimed the right
to charge for all over 10000 pounds, and Mr..
Morris testified he knew this, but he denied
that it was right.
The court, differing from the jury, beliey-
ed that the custom had been proven, and
new trial would be granted, unless plaintiff
entered a reaaittur for all amounts found by
the Jury over the Ga rate. In Difference to
the courts opinion, the renaittaf was entered,
and Mr.. Morris thought that the Railroad
Company would pay the judgment without
further litigation; but the Railroad Company
took an appeal, and so the matter stands
now.
Not long ago decision in somewhat SIM
liar case was rendered by the Supreme Court
of Appeals of West Virginia, the case being
that of "West Virginia Transportation Co.
as. Sweeser,n where shipper of oil having
no other road to ship over, had agreed to,
and after the delivery of the oil, in fact did
paw to the Railroad Company more than
legal rates for the freight of such oil, and
the court held that such person must be con-
sidered as having made such payments not
voluntarily but by compulsion, and had q
right to recover back the oyercharges SO