Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

9

Notice to the railroad that the con- | lawful charges." It was beyond the signee is not the owner of the goods is power of the railroad company and the ineffectual to relieve the consignee of York & Whitney Company to waive or liability for the full charges.

alter this provision by an agreement Ibid.

whereby the consignee became liable for At common law a consignee, by ac- a part only of the lawful charges. The cepting property under a bill of lading clause was absolutely binding on the calling for payment of freight from him, parties. became bound by a contract implied in Texas & P. R. Co. v. Leatherwood, 250 law to pay the charges. The rule was U. S. 478, 481, 63 L. ed. 1096, 1098, 39 the same, although the consignee was not Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Missouri, K. & T. R. the owner of the goods, but merely an Co. v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383, 388, 61 L. agent for the shipper, provided the con- ed. 1213, 1216, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 617; signee was not designated as agent in Northern P. R. Co. v. Wall, 241 U. S. the bill of lading.

87, 60 L. ed. 905, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Boston & M. R. Co. v. Whitcher, 1 Al- Metz Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co. 227 len, 498; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titus, Mass. 307, 116 N. E. 475; Southern R. 216 N. Y. 17, L.R.A.1916E, 1127, 109 Co. v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632, 638, 60 N. E. 857, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 862; Union L. ed. 836, 839, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 469; P. R. Co. v. American Smelting & Ref. Erie R. Co. v. Stone, 244 U. S. 332, 336, Co. 121 C. C. A. 182, 202 Fed. 720; 61 L. ed. 1173, 1175, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. Davison_v. City Bank, 57 N. Y. 81; Old 633. Colony R. Co. v. Wilder, 137 Mass. 536. The fact that notice was given to the

Since the Carmack Amendment, under railroad company by the consignee that which bills of lading for interstate it was acting merely as commission mertransportation are issued, such bills of chant did not require the state court lading must be interpreted in the light to hold, as a matter of law, that the conof the acts of Congress.

signee was not liable. An agent may be Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. bound personally at common law, alDettlebach, 239 U. S. 588, 593, 60 L. ed. though the agency is disclosed. The 453, 457, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177.

jury could find properly that the conThe state court misinterpreted the signee, although known to be an agent, bill-of-lading clause, and failed to give impliedly promised to pay the charges. proper significance to the duly filed bill- Elwell v. Skiddy, 77 N. Y. 282; Wilder of-lading form.

v. Cowles, 100 Mass. 491; Brown Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titus, 216 N. Bradlee, 156 Mass. 28, 15 L.R.A. 509, Y. 17, L.R.A.1916E, 1127, 109 N. E. 857, 32 Am. St. Rep. 430, 30 N. E. 85; Ann. Cas. 1917C, 862; New York, N. H. Hutchinson, Carr. 3d ed. § 807, p. 898. & H. R. Co. v. York & W. Co. 215 Mass. The railroad company cannot be 36, 102 N. E. 366.

charged, as a matter of law, with knowlThe consignee charged with edge that the shipments were consigned knowledge of the bill-of-lading clause.

to the York & Whitney Company as comChicago & A. R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U. mission merchant, from information tbat S. 155, 56 L. ed. 1033, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. a portion of its business generally was 648, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 501; Georgia, F. handled in this way, nor from informa& Á. R. Co. v. Blish Mill. Co. 241 U. S. tion that the cantaloupes were commis190, 60 L. ed. 948, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; sion goods. Western Transit Co. v. A. C. Leslie & New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. York Co. 242 U. S. 448, 61 L. ed. 423, 37 Sup. & W. Co. 215 Mass. 36, 102 N. E. 366; Ct. Rep. 133; Boston & M. R. Co. v. Singer v. Merchants espatch Transp. Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 58 L. ed. 868, Co. 191 Mass. 455, 114 Am. St. Rep. 635, L.R.A.1915B, 450, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526, 77 N. E. 882; Jackson v. Piowaty & Sons, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593; Louisville & N. 205 Ill. App. 329. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 59 L. The consignee, although not in fact ed. 853, L.R.A.1915E, 665, P.U.R.1915C, the owner of the property, by accepting 300, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; Atchison, T. the interstate shipments, contracted to & S. F. R. Co. v. Robinson, 233 U. S. pay all lawful tariff charges. The judg173, 58 L. ed. 901, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 556; ment of the lower court was justified, if Standard Combed Thread Co. v. Penn- not required. sylvania R. Co. 88 N. J. L. 257, L.R.A. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. 1916C, 606, 95 Atl. 1002.

Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 63 L. ed. 1151, 40 The bill-of-lading clause required the Sup. Ct. Rep. 27; New York, N, H. & payment of “the freight and all other H. R. Co. v. York & W. Co. 215 Mass.

.

V.

was

36, 102 N. E. 366; Pennsylvania R. Co. mont R. Co. 170 Mass. 36, 49 N. E. 97; v. Titus, 216 N. Y. 17, L.R.A.1916E, 1127, Central R. Co. v. MacCartney, 68 N. J. 109 N. E. 857, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 862; L. 165, 52 Atl. 575; Central of Georgia Emerson v. Central of Georgia R. Co. R. Co. v. Southern Ferro Concrete Co. 196 Ala. 280, L.R.A.1916F, 120, 72 So. 193 Ala. 108, 68 So. 981, Ann. Cas. 120; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. 1916E, 376; New York, N. H. & H. R. Sampson, 222 Mass. 311, 110 N. E. 964; Co. v. York & W. Co. 215 Mass. 36, 102 Boston & M. R. Co. v. Oceanic Steam N. E. 366. Nav. Co. 226 Mass. 509, 116 N. E. 260; The custom of the trade is binding on Boston & M. R. Co. v. Whitcher, 1 Allen, the carrier. 497; Old Colony R. Co. v. Wilder, 137 South Deerfield Onion Storage Co. v. Mass. 536; 10 C. J. 446.

New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 222 Mass. The state court was correct in hold-535, 111 N. E. 367. ing justified the finding that the rail- The only right the railroad company road company was not estopped to col- had against the York & Whitney Comlect the undercharges on the last five pany was the right to hold the goods uncarloads of cantaloupes and on the pie- til its lien was discharged. The possible plant an peaches, and that the York extent of the lien is the lawful tariff & Whitney Company could not recoup rates. damages.

Gulf. C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. U. S. 98, 39 L. ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 582, 583, 63 L. 802. ed. 1151, 1153, 1154, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. But the railroad company was not 27; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 bound to enforce its lien. Under the U. S. 242, 50 L. ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. bills of lading the carrier could collect · 628; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Titus, 216 the lawful charges from either the shipN. Y. 17, L.R.A.1916E, 1127, 109 N. E. per or the consignee. Waiver of the lien 857, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 862; Louisiana R. as against the consignee does not relieve & Nav. Co. v. Holly, 127 La. 615, 53 So. the shipper, and the terms of the bill of 882; Central R. Co. v. Mauser, 241 Pa. lading would be fully satisfied. 608, 49 L.R.A.(N.S.) 92, 88 Atl. 791; Wooster v. Tarr, 8 Allen, 270, 85 Am. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. York & Dec. 707. W. Co. 215 Mass. 40, 102 N. E. 366; Liability does not turn upon knowlIllinois C. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator edge of established rates. Co. 226 U. S. 441, 57 L. ed. 290, 33 Sup. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Southern Ct. Rep. 176; Central R. Co. v. McCart- Ferro Concrete Co. 193 Ala. 108, 68 So. ney, 68 N. J. L. 165, 52 Atl. 575. 981, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 376; Central R. Mr. Amos L. Taylor argued the cause

Co. v. MacCartney, 68 N. J. L. 165, 52

Atl. 575. and filed a brief for the York & Whit

Even if the decision of the Massachuney Company:

setts court to the effect that the York & None of these bills of lading ever Whitney Company had impliedly concame to the possession of the York & tracted to pay the lawful freight rates Whitney Company, and it had no knowl- can be sustained, the decision of that edge of their contents until after the court to the effect that the railroad comdelivery. It cannot be presumed to know pany was not estopped to maintain an the terms, although it may have known action on that contract cannot be susof the uniform bill of lading adopted, tained. since special bills of lading may be is

Deans v. Eldredge, 217 Mass. 588, 105 sued for particular commodities, includ- N. E. 449; Central R. Co. v. MacCartney, ing perishable property.

68 N. J. L. 165, 52 Atl. 575; New York, Re Bills of Lading, 14 Inters. Com. N. H. & H. R. Co. v. York & W. Co. 215 Rep. 346.

Mass. 36, 102 N. E. 366; Utermehle v. The acceptance of the goods by the Norment. 197 U. S. 40, 56, 49 L. ed. 655, agent after the knowledge communicated 661, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291, 3 Ann. Cas. to the carrier that it was acting as agent 520'; Ewart, Estoppel, p. 77; Pom. Eq. establishes no implied contract to pay Jur. 3d ed. p. 1439; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. p. the freight.

207; Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Jones, 73 Boston & M. R. Co. v. Whitcher, 1 Al-Miss. 122, 55 Am. St. Rep. 488, 19 So. len, 498; Old Colony R. Co. v. Wilder, 105; Drake v. Wild, 70 Vt. 52, 39 Atl. 137 Mass. 536; Blanchard v. Page, 8 248. Gray, 295; Tirrell v. Gage, 4 Allen, 253; Even if the amount of the rate is 10 C. J. pp. 445, 446; 2 Hutchinson, I fixed by law, the nature of the rate reof fact. A freight rate is ordinarily a prompt settlements. The court below matter of fact.

held that whether York & Whitney ComFreeman v. Kemendo, Tex. Civ. pany impliedly agreed to pay the rates App. ---, 148 S. W. 605.

imposed by law was a question of fact, The reasons which make it possible to to be determined upon consideration of set up misrepresentation as working an all the circumstances. It accordingly estoppel support the claim of the York approved a judgment, entered upon a & Whitney Company for recoupment.

verdict, favorable to that company as Sears v. Wingate, 3 Allen, 103; Kil- to charges upon one carload (No. 280), gore v. Bruce, 166 Mass. 136, 44 N. E. [408] and in behalf of the railroad for 108; Coleman' v. Lewis, 183 Mass. 485, those claimed on account of eight car68 L.R.A. 482, 97 Am. St. Rep. 450, 67 loads (No. 281). N. E. 603; Lufburrow v. Henderson, 30 We think the doctrine announced in Ga. 482; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Fink, Co. v. Rudy, 173 Ind. 181, 89 N. E. 951; 250 U. S. 577, 63 L. ed. 1151, 40 Sup. Ct. Rogers v. Humphrey, 39 Me. 382; Bird- Rep. 27 (November 10, 1919), is controlsey v. Butterfield, 34 Wis. 52.

ling, and that the liability of York &

Whitney Company was a question of Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the law. The transaction between the paropinion of the court:

ties amounted to an assumption by the Neither party was wholly successful in consignee to pay the only lawful rate it the courts below. 230 Mass. 206, 119 N. had the right to pay, or the carrier the E. 855 (May 24, 1918). Each has [407) right to charge. The consignee could asked and obtained a writ of error and not escape the liability imposed by law also a writ of certiorari. The latter through any contract with the carrier. properly brings the issues before us, and The judgment of the court below, so the former must be dismissed.

far as challenged, in No. 280, must be The railroad company,

as terminal reversed and the cause remanded for carrier, sued York & Whitney Company, further proceedings not. inconsistent a commission merchant, to recover the with this opinion. The judgment so far balance claimed for freight and refrig- as challenged in No. 281 is affirmed. eration on nine carloads of melons, vegetables, and fruit consigned to the latter, subject to lawful charges, and

VICKSBURG, SHREVEPORT, & PACIFIC delivered at Boston during the years

RAILWAY COMPANY, the Kansas City

Southern Railway Company, and Texar. 1911 and 1912. They were shipped in kana & Fort Smith Railway Company, interstate commerce upon straight bills Piffs. in Err., of lading, approved as to form by the Interstate Commerce Commission, but ANDERSON-TULLY COMPANY. none of these came into the consignee's possession, and it had no knowledge of

(See S. C. Reporter's ed. 408-416.) their issuance or terms.

Courts

suit on reparation When York & Whitney Company ac- order. cepted the cars, it paid all charges 1. A railway company which has such claimed. The merchandise was sold at once and the net proceeds remitted to

Note.- As to proper district for suit the shippers. Later, the railroad com

-see note to Roberts v. Lewis, 36 L. ed. pany discovered that it had collected U. S. 579. less than lawful rates established under On immunity of United States from the Interstate Commerce Act, and there- suit-see note to Beers v. Arkansas, 15 upon demanded the balance alleged to be L. ed. U. S. 991. due by reason of such undercharges. On suit against Federal officers or Maintaining it had accepted the ship- agents as suit against United Statesments upon the understanding that the see notes to Louisiana v. Garfield, 53 L. charges were as reported, and had not ed. U. S. 92, and Wells v. Roper, 62 L. agreed to pay more, York & Whitney ed. U. S. 756. Company refused the demand.

On repeal of statute by implication, Commission merchants often receive generally-see notes to State v. Massey, from strangers shipments of perishable 4 L.R.A. 309, and United States v. Henarticles for sale at market prices. Un- derson, 20 L. ed. U. S. 235. der a

trade custom such things are On remedy to enforce orders of public promptly disposed of and the net pro- service commissions-see note to State ceeds remitted to the consignors. Suc- ex rel. Caster v. Southwestern Bell cessful conduct of the business requires Teleph. Co. L.R.A.1918E, 313.

[ocr errors]

venue

C

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

arrangements with another railway com- state Commerce Commission, should be in pany running through a given Federal dis- the judicial district wherein is the residence trict as are equivalent in practice to a of the party or any of the parties upon lease of the latter company's road for the whose petition the order was made. former's transportation purposes, and which [For other cases, see Courts, V. 4, 7; Statutes, deals with the public and with the Inter

UI. b, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.) state Commerce Commission with respect | Appeal review of facts exceptions. to irafiic as if it owned or had leased the

5. In the absence of special findings tracks, is within the venue provision of of fact by the court below, its general find. the Interstate Commerce Act permitting an ing has, under U. S. Rev. Stat. $ 649, the action upon a reparation order of the effect of a verdict of a jury, and is conInterstate Commerce Commission to be com- clusive upon all matters of fact, and there menced in any district through which the being no exceptions to rulings of law in the road of the carrier runs.

progress of the trial, the review in the [lor other cases, see Courts, V. c, 7, in Digest Federal Supreme Court is, under $ 700, Sup. Ct. 1908.]

limited to the question of the sufficiency Writ and process - return conclue of the complaint. siveness.

(For other cases, see Appeal, VI. b; VIII. 1, 3, 2. The return of a marshal that he

in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.) executed a writ by handing same to a Pleading

complaint reparation person described as freight agent of the

suit. defendant railway company should be ac.

6. Allegations in the petition in a suit cepted as conclusive that he was agent of upon a reparation order of the Interstate such company, as against the objection that Commerce Commission, that the shipper the federal government was, at the time filed its petition with the Commission, the petition was filed, in control of the claiming that it had been charged an unrailway company's line, where there is no

reasonable rate, that, upon hearing, the evidence that the person served was not Commission entered an order for the paysuch agent, and the suit is one upon a ment of money as reparation on account of reparation order of the Interstate Com- unreasonable rates exacted for the transmerce Commission, the shipments for which portation of its freight, that the order re: reparation was allowed having been made quirel payment to ve made by a date named, prior to the taking over of the railroads that the carriers had refused payment when by the government.

demanded, and that the suit was instituted (or other cases, see Writ and Process, iv. in under the Interstate Commerce Act and its Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

amendments, to which petition copies of the United States immunity from suit report and order of the Commission were

Federal instrumentality or agency attached, are amply sufficient to meet the railroad under governaient control. statutory requirement that the petition in

3. The objection of governinent control such a case shall set forth briefly the causes of the railroads cannot defeat jurisdiction for which damages are claimed, and the of a suit upon a reparation order of the order of the Commission in the premises. Interstate Commerce Commission where the (For other cases, see Pleading, II. d, in Digest shipments for which reparation was al

Sup. Ct. 1903.) lowed moved prior to the taking over of the Interstate Commerce Commission railroads by the government, since, under reparation proceeding suspension. the provision of § 10 of the Federal Rail- 7. An amendment to the carrier's tariff road Control Act, “Actions at law or suits so as to correct the unreasonable rate which in equity may be brought by and against was complained of, under § 3 of the Intersuch carriers, and judgments rendered as state Commerce Act, in a petition to the now provided by law; and in any action at Interstate Commerce Commission, removed law or suit in equity against the carrier, any occasion for further suspension of acno defense shall be made thereto upon the tion by the Commission by reason of an ground that the carrier is an instrumental- undisposed-of application for relief by the ity or agency of the Federal government." carrier, under § 4, as amended by the Act [For other cases, see United States, IV. b, in of June 18, 1910, which provides that no Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.]

rates or charges lawfully existing at the Courts venue reparation suit

time of the passage of the amendatory act implied repeal of statute.

shall be required to be changed in any case 4. The venue provision of the Inter- where such an application shall have been state Commerce Act, permitting suits on filed until a determination of such applicareparation orders of the Interstate Com- tion by the Commission. merce Commission to be commenced in any [For other cases, see Interstate Commerce Comdistrict through which the road of the car.

mission, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.) rier runs, was not impliedly repealed by Appeal review of facts exceptions. the Act of October 22, 1913, abolishing the

8. The facts found by the Interstate commerce court, which, in restoring to the Commerce Commission in a reparation proFederal district courts the jurisdiction ceeding were not so adopted by the district which had been vested exclusively in the court in a suit upon the reparation order commerce court, provided that the venue as to become special findings of fact by the of any suit thereafter brouglit to enforce, court, which may be reviewed by the Federal suspend, or set aside any order of the Inter- / Supreme Court without exception taken,

merely because the court found that the trol, was not good service upon the correport and order of the Commission con- poration. stituted prima facie evidence of the facts

Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Atlantic therein stated, and entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount of the Coast Line R. Co. 257 Fed. 133; Mardis order, with interest and attorneys' fees.

v. Hinds, 258 Fed. 945; Westbrook v. [For other cases, see Appeal, vi. V, VIII. 1, 3, Director General, supra; Wood v. Clyde in Dige Sup. Ct. 1908.)

S. S. Co. 257 Fed. 879; Northern P. R. [No. 270.)

Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 63

L. ed. 897, P.U.R.1919D, 705, 39 Sup. Argued March 24, 1921. Decided May 16, Ct. Rep. 502; Castle v. Southern R. Co. 1921.

112 S. C. 407, 8 A.L.R. 959, 99 S. E. 816.

Plaintiff's petition does not state a IN N ERROR to the United States Cir- cause of action.

cuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Denver Circuit, to review a judgment which af- & R. G. R. Co. 200 Fed. 614; Kentucky firmed a judgment of the District Court & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. for the Southern District of Mississippi, Co. 2 L.R.A. 289, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. in favor of plaintiff in a suit upon a 351, 37 Fed. 613; Slacum v. Pomeroy, 6 reparation order of the Interstate Com- Cranch, 221, 3 L. ed. 205; Griggs v. merce Commission. Affirmed.

Madeau, 137 C. C. A. 189, 221 Fed. 381. See same case below, C. C. A. The Commission's findings of fact 261 Fed. 741.

were, on their face, insufficient to susThe facts are stated in the opinion. tain its order of reparation and the Mr. Samuel W. Moore argued the

judgment based thereon. cause, and, with Messrs. J. Blanc Mon

Michigan C. R. Co. v. Elliott, 167 C. roe and Frank H. Moore, filed a brief c. A. 290, 256 Fed. 18; Appalachia

Lumber Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. for plaintiffs in error: Where Congress takes up an entire

25 Inters. Com. Rep. 197; Baer Bros. subject matter and covers it by appro- 233 U. S. 479, 58 L. ed. 1055, 34 Sup.

Mercantile Co. v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. priate legislation, this operates as a repeal of prior provisions upon the same state Commerce Commission, 219 U. S.

Ct. Rep. 644; Southern P. Co. v. Intersubject.

Tracy v. Tufly, 134 U. S. 206, 33 L. 433, 55 L. ed. 283, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 288; ed. 879, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; The Ha- Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 236 U? bana, 175 U. S. 677, 44 L. ed. 320,20 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 334, Ann. Cas. 1916B,

S. 412, 59 L. ed. 644, P.U.R.19151, 1072, Sup. Ct. Rep. 290; United States v. Rid- 691; Missouri & K. Shippers' Asso. v. er, 163 U. S. 132, 41 L. ed. 101, 16 Sup. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 12 Inters. Com. Ct. Rep. 983; District of Columbia y. Hutton, 143 Ú. S. 18, 36 L. ed. 60, 12 Rep. 483; Re Export Rates, 27 Inters. Sup. Ct. Rep. 369; King v. Cornell,'106 Com. Rep. 246; Lehigh Valley R. Co. U. S. 395, 27 L. ed. 60, 1 Sup. Ct-Rep; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 44 Inters.

. ' v. Rainey, 112 Fed. 487; Cameron v. 313; Fisk v. Henaire, 142 U. S. 459, 35 L. ed. 1079, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207;'St. Com. Rep. 286; Oklahoma Traffic Asso. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. S. Samuels v. Abilene & S. R. Co. 36 Inters. Com. & Co. 128 C. C. A. 188, 211 Fed. 588; R.Co. '48 Inters. Com. Rep. 499:

Rep. 329; Mosby v. Yazoo & M. Valley McLean Lumber Co. v. United States, Sligo Iron Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. 237 Fed. 460; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Public F. R. Co. 17 Inters. Com. Rep. 139 ; Utilities Commission, 245 U. S. 493, 62 L. ed. 425, P.U.R.1918C, 1279, 38 Sup. S. F. R. Co. 18 Inters. Com. Rep.

Consumers' Ice Co. v. Atchison, T. & Ct. Rep. 170; Skinner & E. Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 63 L. ed. 277; Brush Creek Min. & Mfg. co.

v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 39 Inters. Com. 772, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375. The road of the Vicksburg, Shreve

449; Re Rice Rates, 31 Inters. Com. port, & Pacific Railroad does not run

Rep. 614; Re Midcontinent Oil Rates, through the southern district of Missis- 36 Inters. Com. Rep. 115; Northern sippi.

Pine Mfrs. Asso. v. Chicago & N. W. Westbrook v. Director General, 263 R. Co. 33 Inters. Com. Rep. 360; Fed. 211.

Knight Woolen Mills v. Chicago & N. The attempted service upon the Vicks- W. R. Co. 32 Inters. Com. Rep. 490; burg, Shreveport, & Pacific Railway Railroad Comrs. v. Denver & R. G. R. Co. Company by delivering a copy of the 27 Inters. Com. Rep. 522; Victor Mfg. summons to the freight agent at Vicks- Co. v. Southern R. Co. 27 Inters. Com. burg. Mississippi, during Federal con- Rep. 661; Iowa State Bd. v. Arizona

« ForrigeFortsett »