Skip to main content
· 6/27/1913

Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R.

Citations

  • 241 Pa. 536
  • 88 A. 743
  • 1913 Pa. LEXIS 813

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Railroad companies — Discrimination in rates — Practice — Statement of claim — Amendments—New cause of action— Evidence — Intrastate commerce — Unlawful charges — Voluntary payments — Statute of limitations — Concealment.</p> <p>1. In an action of trespass to recover damages from a railroad company for unlawful discrimination in allowing rebates and drawbacks to plaintiff's competitors, plaintiff was not entitled to amend its statement of claim so as to claim damages for acts of discrimination not charged in the original statement, and alleged to have occurred more than six years before the application to amend was made, as such amendment would set up a new cause of action, barred by the statute of limitations; or to change by amendment an action for unlawful discrimination, at the common law to an action for the recovery of the penalties prescribed by the Act of June 4, 1883, P. L. 72, in cases of unlawful discrimination, where the application to amend was made more than six years after the discrimination complained of was practiced.</p> <p>2. Where in such action plaintiff contended that defendant’s fraudulent concealment of its discriminatory practices had tolled the running of the statute of limitations as to discriminations practiced more than six years before the action was brought, but the only evidence offered in support of the alleged concealment was that defendant’s coal freight agent had told the president of the plaintiff company that in future plaintiff would be charged the same rates as other shippers, and would be notified of any additional concessions made to other shippers, the court did not err in holding the evidence offered insufficient to toll the statute of limitations.</p> <p>3. Recovery for discrimination in rates charged plaintiff on certain shipments consigned to it at a point near the border of the State was properly allowed, as such shipments were intrastate- shipments, although plaintiff might later have sent them to points

Judges: Brown, Fell, Mesteezat, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.