Case Name: WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1915-03-01
Citations: 222 F. 69
Docket Number: No. 2649
Parties: WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES.
Judges: Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 222
Pages: 69–70

Head Matter:
WATERS-PIERCE OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 1, 1915.
On Rehearing, March 15, 1915.)
No. 2649.
On Rehearing.
Carriers <§=>32 — Rates—Rebates—Statutory Provisions.
Where a special tariff promulgated by a railroad company, making a rate to a point on the line of the S. Co., though filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, was not a joint tariff fixing a joint rate, a joint rate subsequently made by the two roads and duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission superseded the rate previously promulgated, the rule that a rate once lawfully published continues to be the lawful rato until it has been lawfully canceled, and that a subsequent tariff naming other rates, without canceling the previous rates, cannot carry the new rates into lawful effect, having no application; and the use and acceptance of the old rate by shippers after the filing of the new rate, and after the passage of Elkins Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847 (Comp. St. 1913, §§ 8597-8599), was unlawful, a rebate being thereby given.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 83-85; Dec. Dig. <§=>32.]
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Eouisiana; Aleck Boarman, Judge.
The Waters-Pierce Oil Company was convicted of an offense and it brings error.
Affirmed.
J._ D. Wilkinson, of Shreveport, la., and J. D. Johnson, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
George Whitfield Jack, U. S. Atty., of Shreveport, La.
Before PARDEE and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and MAXEY, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find no reversible error assigned or patent of record in this case. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.