Minds v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Citations
- 228 Pa. 575
- 77 A. 909
- 1910 Pa. LEXIS 529
Syllabus
<p>Railroads — Carriers — Discrimination — Transportation facilities — Sidings — Act of June 4, 1883, P. L. 72.</p> <p>1. A railroad company is not relieved from the duty of furnishing equal transportation facilities to a coal company by reason of unusual traffic conditions attendant upon a general coal strike.</p> <p>2. A siding connection is a facility for transportation within the meaning of the Act of June 4, 1883, P. L. 72.</p> <p>Railroads — Discrimination—Measures of damages — -Refusal of siding —Act of June J,, 1883, P. L. 72 — Request for siding.</p> <p>3. In an action by a coal company against a railroad to recover damages under the Act of June 4, 1883, P. L. 72, for discrimination in furnishing transportation facilities, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered and the jury have a right to take into consideration the difference between the mining cost and the fair average selling price in the mining region at the period of discrimination, though this is not necessarily and absolutely the measure of damages.</p> <p>4. In such case when the discrimination alleged against the common carrier is the refusal of a siding, the loss on unmined coal, that is, coal which plaintiff was unreasonably prevented from mining by reason of the refusal of a siding, must necessarily enter into the consideration of the jury in determining the measure of damages.</p> <p>5. In an action by two brothers as partners against a railroad company to recover damages for refusing to allow them a siding to their coal mine, the defendant cannot allege as a defense that the request for the siding was not made by plaintiffs, but by their father, if it appears that the father was acting for his sons, and that no one else could have brought the action, except the sons.</p> <p>Railroad companies — Carriers—Discrimination—Act of June 4,1888, p. l. n.</p> <p>6. The Act of June 4, 1883, P. L. 72, relating to discrimination by common carriers has not been repealed by eit
Judges: Brown, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.