The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-02-17
RIGHT TO CHARGE DEMURRAGE.
NOVEL POINT RAISED IN A LAW
CASE NOW ON TRIAL.

c. II. Dixon Sued by the Central Rail-
way for Demurrage Charges-The
City's Contract with the Central
for the Handling of Cars to the
WaterwOrks to Enter Into the
Case-Mr. DfxOn's Attorney Claims
That No DemurraGe Charges Can
BE Made by a Railroad Until At
ter the Delivery of the Freight
Cars.
The suit of the Central of Georgia Rail-
way Company against c. H. Dixon was
begun in the Superior Court yesterday aft
ernoon. 1t is expected that the case will
occupy to-day, and will probably go over
to tomorrow. 1t involves some interesting
points of law. The main point raised so
far is one as to the right of a railway
company to charge demurrage in certain
instances, such as the one presented in this
case. The attorney for Mr.. Dixon made
the claim that there is no statute of the
state of Georgia upon which to base d
charge for demurrage where the freight
has not been delivered to its destination.
The facts of the case, as set forth, are
that last June Mr.. Dixon ordered four
cars from the Central Railway Company
for the purpose of shipping coal to the
city water works. The cars were loaded,
but the railway company demanded pay
ment In advance for the freight at the
rate of 1715 cents a ton, its scheduled rate
for such haul This Mr.. Dixon declined
to pay, and rendered instead a payment OF
81 per car, the price for transferring coal
cars to the water works agreed upon in
the contract between the city and the
Central Railway Company, by which the
latter company secured the use of the wa
ter works track.
Mr. Dixon contended that the movement
of car of freight from any point on the
Central Railways track on the river front
to the water works was a transfer in the
meaning of the contract with the city.
and as such could only be charged for at
the rate specified in the contract. The
Central Railway Company took the posi-
ton that the movement was not a trans
fer, but an original shipment from one
point on its line to another point on the
line, and as such must be charged for at
the same rate as an original shipment to
the nearest station on the line
AS Mr.. Dixon refused to pay the freight
rate demanded and as the railroad refused
to move the cars without the payment of
the freight, the loaded cars remained on
the track After a certain length of time
the railway company presented Mr.. Dixon
with bill for demurrage, charging the
usual demurrage rates for the
retention of the cars GER
tain number of days. This Mr.. Dixon
refused to pay. The railroad then took
out an attachment and secured lien on
the coal for the amount of it's bill. II is
the validity of this lien that is now being
tested in the court. The intention is
doubtless to bring into the case the con-
tract between the city and the railway
company, in order to secure a ruling of
the court, but the manner In which this
is to be done has not yet been made APP
parent
After the circumstances related had TAX
en- place the matter was brought before
the Railroad Commission and the effort was
made to secure a ruling on the line of Mr.
Dixon's contention. The decision of the
commission was unfaVorable, however.
that body holding that the case did not
come within the terms of the contract be-
tween the city and the railway company.
The merits of the case have not been
gone into Mr. T. NJ. Cunningham, Jr.,
representing the railway company was
about TO open the case when Mr.. j. r.
Saussy, Jr., representing Mr.. Dixon inter-
posed motion to dismiss the whole pro-
ceedings on the ground that there is no
statutory provision of Georgia law on
which TO base claim for demurrase. pre-
Vious to the delivery of the freight TO its
destination. Mr.. Saussy said that the laws
of maritime demurrage could not apply to
railroad business. The only provisions
made for the collection of demurrage bv
railroads, he said, were where cars were
unnecessarily detained beyond the specifed
time allowed for the unloading of freight
after the delivery of cars TO the con-
signee. 1t was out of question, he claimed
10 make a charge for demurrage where
the cars had not. even been moved from
the point OF shipment, especially as there
is no provision in law made for the collec-
ton of such a charge. On account of the
circumstances of the case Mr. Saussv said
That II would develop some novel features
as this was probably the first time tNat
such point had been raised in the courts
Mr.. Cunningham replied that he did not
think there was any prospect of creating
new law as the result of this case. The
question is very simple one he said. De-
murrase and storage he held to be prac-
ticaEy the same thing. whether the cars
were necessarily detained or were used for
the storage of goods, the result was the
same to the railroad. Even if there were
no provision for the collection of demur
rage under the circumstances cited he held
that the railroad would be entitled
TO collect under its charter as a warehouse
or storage depository.
After listening to argument by the at
torneys on this point Judge Falligant over
ruled Mr. Saussy's notion stating that
he wished to hear the case on its merits
No formal order overruling the motion was
taken however, as the motion may he re-
verted 10 after the case has been held on
its merits.