Court Opinion

ID: 9707673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:18:01.975018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.611187
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Wiltrout, J.
In his petition for rehearing the appellant earnestly insists that the evidence in this case is without conflict as to the nature and character of the shipment transported, by reason of a stipulation of facts made by the parties, and particularly Paragraph 15 thereof. By that paragraph it was agreed that Appellant’s Exhibit 1, including a photograph and printed descriptive matter under the photograph truly and correctly states the description, dimensions, size and character of the articles shipped in the two carload ship-*90merits in breakdown form. The printed matter contains a detailed physical description of the craft.
Appellant and appellee agree that “it is the nature and character of the commodity shipped and not the use to which it is put which controls in determining the rate applicable.” We do not take issue with this.
However, as stated in the original opinion, the evidence as to whether or not a craft of the character shown is a tugboat is conflicting.
Even though we were to assume that the shipment was that of a tugboat, it does not follow that appellant is entitled to recover the alleged undercharges. The rate contended for by appellant applies only to “Tugboats, SU, loose or in packages.” Expert witnesses testified as to the meaning of this terminology. Evidence was introduced that “SU” means “set up,” as opposed to “KD” or “knocked down,” and that the shipment here was “KD.” Evidence was also introduced that tugboats in packages means in any kind of a crate or box, and we further gather that “loose” refers to tugboats which are not crated or boxed.
In accordance with the evidence in this case the trial court could properly have based its decision upon the additional ground that the shipment here was neither a tugboat which was set up and loose or a tugboat which was set up and in a package.
Petition for rehearing denied.
Note. — Reported in 101 N. E. 2d 68.