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


PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. V. MITCHELL COAL & COKE CO., 238 U. S. 251 (1915)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 238 U. S. 251 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co., 238 U.S. 251 (1915)

Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Company

No. 287

Argued May 14, 1915

Decided June 14, 1915

238 U.S. 251

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATES OF PENNSYLVANIA

Syllabus

There being nothing in the record to show that any of. the shipments involved in this case, in which the state court gave a judgment against the carrier for damages for discrimination in secret allowance of rebates to other shippers of like goods under the state law, were interstate shipments, and the court having found that all the shipments were intrastate, the judgment is affirmed.

241 Pa.St. 536 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of a judgment recovered in the state court by a shipper of coal for damages sustained through unlawful discrimination by the carrier in allowing and paying rebates to other shippers, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 238 U. S. 252

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error brings under review a judgment recovered by a shipper of coal for damages sustained through unlawful discrimination consisting in the secret allowance and payment of rebates to other shippers for whom the carrier was rendering a like and contemporaneous service. 241 Pa.St. 536. The action was brought and the judgment rendered under the law of the state, and the complaint now made is that damages were awarded in respect of several shipments which were not intrastate, but destined to points outside the state, and as to which no recovery could be had in this action consistently with the Interstate Commerce Act. See Mitchell Coal and Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247. The plaintiff's statement of claim described the shipments as intrastate -- that is, as made from one point to another in the state -- and up to the time that the referee came to compute the damages, it does not appear to have been questioned that all the shipments were of that class. A stipulation was then entered into specifying the number of tons shipped by the plaintiff during each of several periods and describing the shipments as made from the plaintiff's mines in Pennsylvania "to points within the state," but appended to the stipulation was a note wherein the defendant insisted that, according to the evidence, part of the shipments -- those to Greenwich, Pennsylvania, "included coal chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 238 U. S. 253

destined to points beyond the state," and that no recovery could be had in this action in respect of interstate shipments, and also a note on the part of the plaintiff controverting what was asserted in the defendant's note. The referee concluded that the shipments were all intrastate, and, while recognizing that some of the coal "might have been" reshipped from Greenwich to places outside the state, said: "The plaintiff might have sold the coal at that place. To have moved the coal from Greenwich, a new contract for carriage would have been necessary." The referee's conclusion was sustained by the trial court and by the supreme court of the state, the latter saying:

"The shipments to Greenwich, Philadelphia, were intrastate, and hence were properly included in this action. They were consigned to plaintiff at Greenwich, and there the contract of carriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was fully performed and ended. What disposition the plaintiff made of the shipments at Greenwich, whether it sold them or sent them within or beyond the state, is immaterial as affecting the question whether, as between the plaintiff and the defendant, they were intrastate or interstate."

We find nothing in the record to sustain the contention that some of the shipments were interstate. While it appears that part of the coal was shipped from the mines to Greenwich, that the plaintiff there turned some of it over to other coal dealers, sold some of it outright, and possibly reshipped some to other places, it does not appear that any of it went out of the state, or, if it did, that the circumstances were such that its carriage from the mines to Greenwich was in fact but part of an intended and connected transportation beyond the state. See Gulf, Col & Santa Fe Ry. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403; Ohio R. Commission v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101; Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111; Louisiana R. Commission v. Tex. & Pac. Ry., 229 U. S. 336. The record chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 238 U. S. 254

does not purport to contain all the evidence bearing upon this point, but it does show that, in some of the exhibits, the shipments included in the recovery were all listed and designated as "Coal -- Intrastate." In this situation, the conclusion reached by the state courts cannot be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.





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