Ohio Coal Co. v. Whitcomb

Citations

• 123 F. 359
• 59 C.C.A. 487
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4000

Syllabus

<p>1. Carriers—Discriminative Charges—Joint Use of Terminal Track.</p> <p>Along the docks in a city was a railroad track called the “Bay Front Track,” one part owned by defendant, and connecting with its main line, and the other part by another railroad company, and connected with its line, and connecting spurs from which reached the several docks. By an agreement between the two companies the entire track was used jointly, each maintaining its own portion. Held, that such, agreement made the entire track a part of defendant’s terminals, and that an extra charge of $2 per car, made to one shipper from a point on the docks, in addition to the published schedule of rates from the city, where no extra charge was made to any other shipper, was discriminative.</p> <p>2. Same—Agreement to Pat Discriminative Charges—Estoppel.</p> <p>An agreement by a shipper to pay a discriminative charge exacted by a railroad company in order to obtain service to which it was legally entitled without such charge, and with an express stipulation that it thereby waived none of its legal rights, does not estop it from maintaining a suit to recover back the sum so paid.</p> <p>& Same—Charge for Operating Private Side Track—Wisconsin Statute.</p> <p>Rev. St. Wis. 1898, § 1802, which gives a railroad company, thereby required to maintain and operate private side tracks connecting with its lines, and extending to elevators, warehouses, etc., the right to charge the actual cost of maintaining and operating such track, to be paid monthly by the owner, does not justify a company in making an arbitrary charge per car in addition to the scheduled rates for all cars loaded on and taken from such side track, without any reference to the actual cost of maintenance and operation of the track.</p> <p>A Railroads—Action against Receivers.</p> <p>Where, on sale of a railroad in foreclosure, the purchaser is required by the decree to pay all.liabilities of the receivers remaining unpaid, the court retains ju