The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-04-20

DISTRICT COURT HOLDS
OFFICIALS ARE POWERLESo
Fixing of Higher or Lower
Schedules Declared Not to
Be Binding.

r, decision rendered by Judge W.
I P,tcbie of the district court lucsuaS
=, ,hc case of the Oregon Short llhc
Railroad company against the oon9o.'
.dotod WAGON and Machine company inc
freight rates between points IN oli''e"'
states. as fixed by the Interstate oo'"
,,orco commission, arc upheld, rcGaru'
less Of the fact that the railroad eo"'
many made a contract wlth inc "HSo''
aud machine company TO haul '"e
froight nj n lower rate, II IS hcId pS
.Jud1r Richie that no rallroao ol'i' ~
con hind The company 10 haul irelHn'
AZ q lower rate than that agreed upon
hy the interstate commerce com 1ls9l9u
AS a fair rate TO he charged anu puu
Iiebnd in the tariff schedules after theS
ho,.o hccn filed with the commission.
The Short Line, as common I'd ~, re-
transportcd shipments of nay from
spencer. Ida, TO Yellowstone, MON.
and The wagon and machine company
Maid therefor at the rate of Ia cents u
hundred hounds. The railroad company
filcd action TO recover Sl32.L6, alleging
that that much more was due on 'ne
rate of 10 cents 4 hundred, hxed py
the tariff fled with the interstate com
mcrce commission.
Contentious Of Defendant.
II was contended by the defendant
that the general freight agent OF tnt
Short Line had agreed TO the lt-Geo'
rate. and hence the company should DC
held TO IFS contract. and should not be
allowed TO recover the higher rate.
IL was also contended by the De
fondant that the tariff sheet IN when
the lg-cent rate was fixed was sent To
the commission. but was rejected as be
mo irregular in form, aud hence the
commission had never approved tha'
rate. Relying on the contract to carry
the hay AT l4 cents a hundred, the de,
fondant had made the shipment and
sold the hay, and if the higher rate
should be upheld by the court. 1t alleges
that The defendant would sustain loss
on the shipment
oficial's Action Not Binding.
Judge Ritchie holds that the defend
ant had no right 10 rely upon the rate
fixed by an agent of the company, hlgl
or low in authority, because he could
not bind the company by any represcn
tation in the face of the approval OF a
rate by the commerce commission.
As 10 the rejection of the tarlfi
schedule bv the commerce commission
the evidence showed that the reason
alleged by the clerk OF inc cohluils
sion who returned the schedule for re
fusing 10 file il was that these words
appeared on the title page: 'Ship
ments to be accepted only at couven,
ience of construction department
As to the right of the clerk TO reject
the schedule for the reason assigned
Judge Ritchie holds that so long as the
rate rs free from ambiguity and uu
certainty and its application is aflrma
tive and definite, the commission has
no power to make regulations concern
ing it IN any other respect.
Rate Was Binding.
Continuing on that point, Judge
Richie holds: THAT the schedule in
question was actually received by the
commission. and ought 10 have been
fled, and was improperly rejected by
il. The receipt OF n lawful schedule
imposed upon the commission the duty
Of fling il, and that that, in the eye OF
the law. constituted filing is amply
supported by the authorities. -
Tho court. in closing, finds that The
tariff, as sent 10 the commerce com
mission by the Short Line. was in
effect, and the rate therein fixed was
binding upon The railroad company and
the defendant in the case. Hence, judg
ment is rendered in favor of the rail
road company for tho full amount
asked in its complaint