Court Opinion

ID: 9826854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 16:47:41.585385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:16.742793
License: Public Domain

*485On Petition to Rehear.
Defendant has petitioned for a rehearing and points to the following excerpts from the pages attached to the certificate:
‘‘Local and joint baggage tayidf^No. 500-F. baggage rules, regulations, rates and charges applying in connection with the transportation of baggage and other articles that may be transported in baggage service at and between stations on the lines of the issuing carriers shown herein.”
“The form of this tariff is authorized by permission of the Interstate Commerce Commission No. 7689 of March 6-, 1942, which expires with March 6, 1944.”
“Issued by: National Bus Traffic Association, Inc., Agent, acting* for issuing carriers under Powers of Attorney on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and various State Commissions as shown.”
“This Tariff is published and filed by the National Bus Traffic Association, Inc., Agent . . . for and on behalf of the following listed ‘issuing carriers’, under authority of Powers of Attorney, as shown below and as filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission . . .”
On authority of State, ex rel. v. Payne, Tenn. Sup., 174 S. W. (2d) 457, published after our opinion was filed in this case, the recitals of the certified document afford prima facie evidence of agency which we thought lacking in our original consideration of the case. The petition to rehear is granted and the judgment heretofore entered will be vacated. Judgment will be entered here against defendant for $25 plus costs accruing up to the date of the tender in the Law Court. The remaining costs will be taxed to plaintiff and the cause remanded for proper *486distribution of the sum tendered. However, in view of the doubtful effect of the certificate prior to the publication of the opinion in the above case, plaintiff may upon applicatipn within 15 days after the filing of this opinion have a remand for the purpose of permitting her to rebut the prima facie showing’ that defendant operated under said tariff at the time in question.
Hale and Burnett, JJ., concur.