Case Name: Southern Railway Company v. Bruce
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1951-06-20
Citations: 122 Ind. App. 87
Docket Number: No. 18,108
Parties: Southern Railway Company v. Bruce.
Judges: Martin, C. J., dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 87–98

Head Matter:
Southern Railway Company v. Bruce.
[No. 18,108.
Filed June 20, 1951.
Rehearing denied October 10, 1951.
Transfer denied January 18, 1952.]
Phelps F. Darby and William T. Fitzgerald, both of Evansville, for appellant.
Volmar A. Franz, of Tell City, for appellee.

Opinion:
Wiltrout, J.
Appellant brought this action to recover from appellee by reason of an alleged undercharge in freight rates on a rail shipment.
The complaint charges that a small tugboat was shipped to appellee upon two railroad cars; that when it arrived the appellant's agent by mistake collected from appellee a freight charge which was substantially less than the lawful charges as fixed by the applicable published tariff.
The rate claimed by appellant to be applicable applies, according to the published tariff, to "Tugboats, SU, loose or in packages."
If the craft shipped was not a tugboat, then appellant must fail in its appeal. It is not claimed that any rate other than the one contended for by appellee is applicable if the craft was not a tugboat.
This craft is referred to in a stipulation of the parties as a "Sea Mule" tug. There was testimony that it was, and also testimony that it was not a tugboat. The court made a general finding in favor of appellee.
The evidence was conflicting, and we may not weigh it. We are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Williams v. Bent (1949), 119 Ind. App. 374, 87 N. E. 2d 883; McKinley v. Long (1949), 227 Ind. 639, 88 N. E. 2d 382.
Judgment affirmed.
Martin, C. J., dissents with opinion.
Bowen, J., not participating.
Note. — Reported in 99 N. E. 2d 447.