Court Opinion

ID: 9456395
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:51:09.460646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:57.407615
License: Public Domain

SKELTON, Judge
(dissenting):
At the time the shipments were made in these cases the bills of lading referred to Tender No. 100 — L and its counterpart Tender No. 100-M, ICC No. 38, which was captioned “Rate Quotation on U. S. Government Freight.” This Tender consisted of 69 pages, containing a schedule of specific commodity rates, general rules and regulations on the application of the rates, rules and regulations governing accessorial services, a schedule of distance commodity rates, and items describing the operating rights of the plaintiff and its connecting carriers. Tenders 100-L and 100-M did not specifically state that the rates quoted on radar equipment were contingent upon a declaration or release of value by the shipper. However, in my opinion, this was accomplished by reference. Tenders 100-L and 100-M contained Item 130 under the caption of “General Rules and Regulations” which provided as follows:
REFERENCE TO GOVERNING TARIFFS
Except as otherwise provided herein, this tariff is governed by such rules and regulations, governing volume shipments, as are lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
At the time these shipments moved, plaintiff had on file with the ICC its Local Joint Motor Freight Commodity Tariff No. 2-G and No. 2-H, respectively. Items Nos. 187 and 235, respectively, of these Tariffs, as amended by Supplement No. 18, contained released-value provisions on various commodities, which included "Electrical, Electronic, Radar, Sonar, and Scientific Machines and Machinery.” This item provided that the released value of such a commodity must be shown on the bill of lading and shipping order.
Both'Tenders 100-L and 100-M contained Item 150 which provided as follows:
Reference herein to other publications includes reference to supplements thereto and successive issues thereof.
Paragraph (b):
Reference herein to items on pages in this or other publications includes reference to successive issues of such items or pages in such publications and in supplements thereto and the successive issues thereof, and the numbers of such items or pages are also inclusive.
Item 105 in Tenders 100-L and 100-M also refers to plaintiff’s tariffs published with the ICC.
In my opinion, Item 130, together with Item 150 and Item 105, incorporated in and made applicable to Tenders 100-L and 100-M, by reference, the provisions of Items 187 in the General Rules and Regulations of plaintiff’s published Tariff 2-G, and Supplement 18, and Item 235 in the General Rules and Regulations of plaintiff’s published Tariff 2-H. It was not necessary that these provisions be physically copied in the Tenders. Defendant agrees that this is not only proper, but also that it is done all the time, and that this is the purpose of Item 130.1
I do not agree that Items 187 and 235 of plaintiff’s Tariffs 2-G and 2-H contained separate released value “rates.” They were more in the nature of released value provisions which related to the base rates in the published tariffs and to the Tenders after they were ineor-*486porated therein by reference. The defendant agrees that had the released value provisions been physically copied into Tenders 100-L and 100-M, the shipments would have moved under released valuations at the base rate specified in the Tenders. The same result should follow from the incorporation of the provisions by reference as was done here.
I would enter judgment for the plaintiff against defendant in Case No. 373-65 in the sum of $6,375.35 and in Case No. 210-68 in the sum of $109,773.52, and would deny recovery of defendant’s counterclaim and dismiss the same.
NICHOLS, Judge, joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

. See p. 11 of defendant’s brief.