The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-11-20
Important Railroad Suit Before
Supreme Court.
Question of Demurrages Charge
Being Argued.
BIZ A MILL COMPANY
Missouri Pacific Refused to Rs
ceiye Freight.
Claimed Over Five Hundred
Dollars for Demurrage.

Under special order of the supreme
court, the Larabee Flour Mill man
damus suit against the Missouri Pa
cif1c is being argued this afternoon be-
fore the court
This is looked upon as one of the
most important railroad cases which
the court has been required to decide
for some time. 1t involves the right
of railroad company to charge de-
murrage in certain cases. and also
raises the question of whether the
Kansas supreme court or the inter
state commerce commission has juris-
diction Of the issues involved.
The Larabee Flour mills are at Stat
ford, Kan, and constitute one of the
principal industries of the town. The
mills are located on the Missouri Pa
cif1c tracks. and when shiDm ent was
to be made over the Santa Fe, it was
necessary for the Missouri Pacific to
pick up empty cars on the connecting
track, and take them to the mill
afterwards transferring them back to
The Santa Fe. The Missouri Pacific
claimed that the service was unremun-
erative, and it sought, under the rules
of the Car Service association to col
lect about $500 demurrage which is
claimed was due from the mill COM
pany. The company refused to pay,
and the Missouri Pacific thereupon
the Santa Fe. The mill was obliged to
haul all its shipments on the Santa Fe
about mile in wagons in order to
load them upon the cars. The mill
brought action in mandamus to COM
pei the Missouri Pacific to furnish the
cars.
The Larabee mills are represented
by Waters & Waters of Topeka, and
Doster & Orr and J. H. Richards.
H. c. Sluss of Wichita took the testi-
mony in the case as, commissioner
T. D. Larabee the owner of the mill,
states in his affidavit for the writ of
mandamus that his mill has a capacity
of 1000 barrels OF -four per day and
that the business. Of the mill aggre-
gates a million sand a half dollars a
year. He goes on to explain the pres
ent difficulty as follows:
said mill and elevator is situated
on the line and tracks of the defendant
company; that the line of the Santa Fe
crosses the line of the defendant COM
pany at the city of Stafford and that
the Santa Fe several years ago built a
side track from its own line to a con-
nection with the line of the defendant
company. which transfer track was the
only track by which cars could be
transferred from oneiof these railways
to the other, and 5that for three, years
last past empty cars and loaded cars
on the Santa Fe tracks from points on
its line destined for the mill and ele-
vatOr Of the plaintiff were transferred
by the defendant Company to its mill
and milling tracks and returned after
being loaded or unioaded over the said
track into the possession of the Santa
Fe to complete the shipment or jour
ney, and for which service the defen-
dant company charged the plaintiff
two dollars for each car taken from
the other line and returned again, af-
ter being loaded or unloaded as the
case might be ali of which the
defends company consented to, !
and carried out until about
the 29th day of August, 1906, when it
refused to make any other or further
transfers of cars over said transfer
track for the one excuse that the
plaintiff ayers was. a wholly fndepen-
dent and unconnected matter so far as
concerned; and the plaintiff further
AYERS that the plaintiff has al all times
paid promptly for all service by the
defendant company over said transfer
tracks, the charges established for
such service.
This afiant further states that the |
defendants company has at all times
refused to weigh any and all cars of
grain shipped over it's line for plaintiff
and has at all times compelled the |
plaintiff to accept bills Of lading on ev- |
cry car of grain shipped over its line, |
in which 1t Is stated that the defend |
ant company is not liable for damage |
or shortage thereto. and refuses to is
sue to the plaintiff bills of lading on !
any other conditions or terms what !
ever.
In it's answer to this application for !
a writ of mandamus, the attorneys for
the Missouri Pacific set forth that |
both the Missouri Pacific and Santa Fre |
are engaged in interstate traf- |
hc, and that the application for the |