Source: https://openjurist.org/243/us/281
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:18:24+00:00

Document:
Messrs. M. Hampton Todd and William L. Day for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. C. M. Horn and James H. Hoyt for defendant in error.
The National Convention of Railway Commissioners, an association comprising the commissioners of the several states, adopted in November, 1909, a Uniform Demurrage Code. This action was based upon extensive investigations and thorough discussion, participated in by the railroad commissioners, commercial organizations, representatives of railroads, and individual shippers from all parts of the country. On December 18, 1909, the Interstate Commerce Commission indorsed the rules so adopted, and recommended 'that they be made effective on interstate transportation throughout the country.' Re Demurrage Investigation, 19 Inters. Com. Rep. 496.
NOTE.—Private cars while in railroad service, whether on carrier's or private tracks, are subject to these demurrage rules to the same extent as cars of railroad ownership.
The next day judgment was rendered for the Railway Company. It was affirmed both by the court of appeals of Cuyahoga county and by the supreme court of Ohio. 93 Ohio St. 143, L.R.A. ——, ——, 112 N. E. 212.
The case was then brought to this court on writ of error. The errors assigned were, in substance, that the demurrage rule was repugnant to the Act to Regulate Commerce, and that the decisions below deprived Swift & Company of its property without the due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Prior to the bringing of this action the Interstate Commerce Commission had held in Procter & G. Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. 19 Inters. Com. Rep. 556, that carriers were 'within their lawful rights in establishing and maintaining' the above rule for demurrage charges on private cars. The commerce court approved the finding. Procter & G. Co. v. United States, 188 Fed. 221, 227. An effort to secure a review of these decisions by this court failed. Procter & G. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282, 56 L. ed. 1091, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761.
The facts which determine the character of the switch and the relation to it of carrier and shipper were carefully set forth in the amended petition and the 'license' annexed, copied in the margin.1 Under it Swift & COMPANY occupied a part of the railway company's premises for its warehouse and office and enjoyed the rights in the switch from its main lines. The 'license' recites, among other things, the licensee's desire 'to occupy a track of ground belonging to the Railway Company . . . for the purpose of maintaining thereon a warehouse and office . . . in such a manner as not in any way to interfere with the . . . tracks . . . of the Railway Company . . .;' that the premises lie on 'the north side of the Railway Company's siding, known as the 'Bank Track' . . .;' that 'the switch of the Railway Company hereby let and connected with its main line shall at all times be under control of the Railway Company;' and that 'the Railway Company shall have the right at all times to enter upon the premises hereby let, for the purpose of repairing or maintaining the track thereon, or switching or removing cars thereover.' A rental of $30 per annum is provided for; but the license is terminable on thirty days' notice.
These facts were admitted by the demurrer, upon them the case was heard by the court of common pleas, and upon them the case must be decided in this court, unaffected by stipulation of counsel made 'for the purpose only of reviewing the judgment of the common pleas court.' The construction and effect of a written instrument is a question of law. Dillon v. Barnard, 21 Wall. 430, 437, 22 L. ed. 673, 676. Clearly the track in question was not a private track of the shipper, but a track of the carrier,—like the spur passed upon in National Ref. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. 150 C. C. A. 361, 237 Fed. 347, affirming 226 Fed. 357.
If the stipulation is to be treated as an agreement concerning the legal effect of admitted facts, it is obviously inoperative; since the court cannot be controlled by agreement of counsel on a subsidiary question of law. See cases cited in the margin.2 If the stipulation is to be treated as an attempt to agree 'for the purpose only of reviewing the judgment' below, that what are the facts shall be assumed not to be facts, a moot or fictitious case is presented. 'The duty of this court, as of every judicial tribunal, is limited to determining rights of persons or of property, which are actually controverted in the particular case before it. . . . No stipulation of parties or counsel, whether in the case before the court or in any other case, can enlarge the power, or affect the duty, of the court in this regard.' California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co. 149 U. S. 308, 314, 37 L. ed. 747, 748, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 876. See Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 654, 40 L. ed. 293, 294, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 132. The fact that effect was given to the stipulation by the appellate courts of Ohio does not conclude this court. See Tyler v. Judges of Ct. of Registration, 179 U. S. 405, 410, 45 L. ed. 252, 254, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 206. We treat the stipulation, therefore, as a nullity.
Consignors or consignees of freight shipped in private cars pay the same rates for transportation as if the commodities had been shipped in the cars owned by the carriers; but the owners or lessees of private cars are paid or allowed by the carriers (east of the Mississippi river) a sum equal to three fourths of a cent per mile for refrigerator or tank cars and three fifths to a cent per mile for other cars. The cars are returned by the railroads to the owners without extra charge. The mileage allowance is paid for the return trip as well as on the journey to destination with load. And if the private car owner does not furnish a load for the return journey, the carriers have the right to load the cars. Re Demurrage Charges on Tank Cars, 13 Inters. Com. Rep. 378, 379.
Swift & Company's cars were, therefore, though privately owned, still in railroad service while under lading. The cars while on the switch were on track owned by the Railway Company. The 'transportation,' within the meaning of the Act to Regulate Commerce, had not ended. It cannot be said that a charge for detention of a private car and use of a railroad track under such circumstance is unreasonable. Even before the adoption of the Uniform Demurrage Code such a charge had been upheld by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Cudahy Packing Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 12 Inters. Com. Rep. 446. Defendant's argument was based wholly upon the assumption that the switch was a 'private track;' and the propriety of such a charge for cars detained on a public track seems not to have been questioned.
Mr. Justice McKenna, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, and Mr. Justice McReynolds dissent.
First. This agreement shall not be assigned by the licensee without the written consent of the railway company being first obtained, and in case the said licensee shall permit its interests to be seized or sold under legal process, this agreement shall thereupon become null and void.
Second. The switch of the Railway Company hereby let and connected with its main line shall at all times be under control of the Railway Company.
Third. The Railway Company shall have the right at all times to enter upon the premises hereby let, for the purpose of repairing or maintaining the track thereon, or switching or removing cars thereover.
Fourth. Either party hereto may terminate this agreement at any time, after giving to the other party thirty (30) days' notice in writing, and at or before the termination of said thirty (30) days said licensee shall, at its own expense, remove all said improvements from said premises, without causing damage of any kind to the property of the Railway Company. Upon its failure to do so within said time, the Railway Company may make such removal at the sole cost of the licensee.
censee on or about said premises, resulting from the operation of and use of its railway, engines, cars, or machinery, or by reason of fire or sparks therefrom, or any other casualty arising from the use and operation of its railway, and shall be held forever free and harmless by said licensee from any such liability.
Sixth. The licensee shall consign all products shipped to it, intended to be placed on the siding hereby let, where the rates and services are equal, via the line or lines of the Railway Company, and shall give said Railway Company the long hauls thereof.
Seventh. The licensee hereby accepts the license herein made with the above specified terms and conditions, and agrees that any failure or default on its part as to either of the same may be held and considered a forfeiture and surrender of this license by it.
In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in duplicate, on the day and year first above written.
(Signed) By L. B. Swift.
San Francisco Lumber Co. v. Bibb, 139 Cal. 325, 73 Pac. 864; Owen v. Herzihoff, 2 Cal. App. 622, 84 Pac. 274; Aubuchon v. Bender, 44 Mo. 560; Prescott v. Brooks, ——N. D. ——, 94 N. W. 88, 94; Holms v. Johnston, 12 Heisk, 155. See also Breeze v. Haley, 11 Colo. 351, 362, 18 Pac. 551; Lyon v. Robert Garrett Lumber Co. 77 Kan. 823, 827, 92 Pac. 589; Wells v. Covenant Mut. Ben. Asso. 126 Mo. 630, 639, 29 S. W. 607.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.