Legal Document

352 U.S. 77 Supreme Court Reporter 172 1 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 140 UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,v.The CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY. Number 19. Argued Oct. 15, 1956. Decided December 3, Mr. Morton Hollander, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Meade T. Spicer, Jr., Richmond, Va., respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion Court. This case presents questions similar to those involved in versus Western Pacific R. Co., 59, 161. 2 In 1941 and 1942 Government shipped from Pontiac, Michigan, Newport News, Virginia, over respondent's lines, various military supplies destined China, via port Rangoon, Burma. intended exportation was frustrated by fall Rangoon Japanese forces on March 8, 1942. The therefore took possession shipments at reshipped them about three months later storage centers Pennsylvania New Jersey, more than a year again some goods points Coast, whence they were exported Calcutta, India. Had original purpose shipment China been accomplished, export rate provided Item 23030 Tariff 218—M1 would have applied transportation between Pontiac News. However, when that frustrated, respondent billed higher domestic rate.2 paid these bills as rendered, but subsequently, post-audit General Accounting Office, readjusted charges lower rate, deducting difference subsequent carrier other services.3 Thereafter sued District Eastern Virginia under Tucker Act4 recover amount deductions. gave judgment respondent,5 Appeals affirmed,6 we granted certiorari.7 3 Appeals, following its earlier decision Chesapeake Ohio 4 Cir., 215 Federal Reporter, 2nd 213, held 'that intention abandoned movement which began an converted shipper into shipment'; hence applied. It further had properly denied Government's request referral Interstate Commerce Commission question whether if shipments, be reasonable. As this said 'question not reasonableness rates, everyone conceded reasonable, applicable circumstances case, court competent decide.' Therefore, it concluded there no 'administrative questions' determine. Further, without questioning timeliness suit Act,8 any event tariff barred two-year statute limitations Act.9 Unlike Claims supra, correctly think, regarded reasonable so applied, simply two ways stating same underlying problem. Hence face one dealt with namely: does issue construction, court, involve such acquaintance rate-making factors make initially Commission, doctrine primary jurisdiction? instance cannot say positively or should Commission. Government, treating issues 'construction' 'reasonableness' separable, did Appeals' holding argued only unreasonable shipments. parties, therefore, briefed making against application rather tariff. Consequently, do know what kinds are involved, record construction referred We think determined upon full record, doubt include consideration shown followed here,10 is before us.11 For reasons given our hold § 16(3) limitations. 5 shall reverse below remand proceedings inconsistent supra. ordered. 6 Reversed remanded. 7 DOUGLAS dissents reference matters since he view principles Great Northern company Merchants Elevator 259 285, 42 477, 66 L.Ed. 943, here. 8 REED BRENNAN part case. 'Application Export Rates North Atlantic Seaboard Ports 'The rates named tariff, may amended, designated 'Export Rates' will apply traffic leave carrier, Port Terminal carriers direct steamer steamer's dock arrival after transit has accorded tariffs permit also party entitled receive carrier's seaboard stations apply, handled carriers' steamship docks required proof given. (C.F.A.Inf. 8179, 13607)' Central Freight Association, 490—A. procedure authorized 322 Transportation Act September 18, 1940, 54 Statutes-at-Large 955, 49 Code KF62 66, Annotated KF65 U5 66. 28 1346(a)(2), 1346(a)(2). filed written opinion. rendered short oral appears pages 40—41 record. 224 443, 444. 350 953, 76 343. cause action accrued summer 1946, deducted rate. 10, 1952. On assumption applies see 161, timely brought. 9 24 384, 16(3), 16(3). 10 213. 11 suggests comparable situations decided apply. See C. baron Fox Gulf, Mobile 246 I.C.C. 561; River Petroleum Corporation Yazoo M.V.R. 258 1; Mid-Continent Illinois 422; Products-From-Sweden, Incorporated Lehigh Valley 263 760. Respondent, turn, cites California Texas Oil Bessemer Lake Erie 264 147; Chemical Fertilizer 268 468; War Materials Reparations Cases, 294 5. express effect decisions, their relevancy situation hand left first instance.

Classification Label: 8