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, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILROAD COMPANY V. ACKLEY, 94 U. S. 179 (1876)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 94 U. S. 179 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company v. Ackley, 94 U.S. 179 (1876)

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company v. Ackley

94 U.S. 179

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE, STATE OF WISCONSIN

Syllabus

A railroad company in Wisconsin cannot recover for the transportation of property more than the maximum fixed by the act of that State of March 11,1874, by showing that the amount charged was no more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question presented by this record is whether a railroad company in Wisconsin can recover for the transportation of property more than the maximum fixed by the act of March 11, 1874, by showing that the amount charged was no more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered.

What we have already said in Peik v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company and Lawrence v. Same, supra, p. 94 U. S. 164, is applicable to this case. As between the company and a freighter, there is a statutory limitation of the charge for transportation actually performed. If the company should refuse to carry at the prices fixed, and an attempt should be made to forfeit its charter on that account, other questions might arise, which it will be time enough to consider when they are presented. But for goods actually carried, the limit of the recovery is that prescribed by the statute.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR. JUSTICE STRONG dissented.





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