CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


CHICAGO & ALTON R. CO. V. KIRBY, 225 U. S. 155 (1912)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 225 U. S. 155 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155 (1912)

Chicago & Alton Railroad Company v. Kirby

No. 226

Argued April 25, 1912

Decided May 27, 1912

225 U.S. 155

Syllabus

The implied agreement of a common carrier is to carry safely and deliver at destination within a proper time; evidence of diligence and no unreasonable delay excuses.

A carrier who agrees to expedite assumes a more burdensome liability, and can exact a higher rate, than where mere carrier's liability exists.

An interstate carrier can assume an extra liability for expediting, provided it makes and publishes a rate therefor and opens it to all.

To agree with a particular shipper to expedite a shipment at regular rates, where no rate has been published for special expediting, is a discrimination and as such a violation of the Elkins Act of February 19, 1903, 32 Stat. 847, c. 708, and relief on the contract will be denied.

The broad purpose of the Commerce Act to compel the establishment of reasonable rates and uniform application will not be defeated by sanctioning special contracts giving special advantages to particular shippers.

To guarantee a particular connection and transportation by a particular train amounts to giving a preference when not open to all and provided for in the published tariffs, and, under the Elkins Act, is an illegal discrimination.

A shipper is presumed to know what the published rates are, and if they do not contain provisions for the special service guaranteed to him, he must be taken as having contracted for a rate discriminatory in his favor.

Where plaintiff sues only on a special contract for prompt delivery by specified train, and there is no count for negligence as a carrier only, his claim for damages based on such negligence is not presented, and cannot be considered, on the record.

242 Ill. 418 reversed.

The facts, which involve the validity under the Elkins Act of a special contract for prompt delivery of goods by an interstate carrier, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 225 U. S. 162





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED