Pittsburgh Crucible Steel Co. v. Pennsylvania Co.

Citations

• 265 Pa. 568
• 109 A. 281
• 1920 Pa. LEXIS 482

Syllabus

<p>Railroads — Contract — Sidings — Charge for cars transported over a siding — Construction of written contract.</p> <p>In an action by a steel company against a railroad company to recover a charge of one dollar per car on a large number of “loaded cars” transported over a siding of plaintiff known as siding “A,” it appeared that the claim was based on a written contract, and not on a quantum meruit. At the date of the contract the railroad company contemplated building certain new sidings to join with siding “A” all to be used in connection with a new freight station. Neither new sidings nor freight station had been constructed at the time suit was brought. The contract provided that “the steel company hereby grants to the railway company the right to transport over siding “A” cars consigned to or from the proposed freight station and to or from any industry now or hereafter to be located on property now or hereafter owned by the steel company. Por each loaded car not engaged in the business of the steel company transported over siding “A” excepting ears containing carload shipments consigned to or from said freight station, or for station team track delivery, the railway company agrees to pay the steel company the sum of one dollar, for such privilege.” The contract immediately thereafter referred to certain other classes of cars which were not to be charged for. Reid:</p> <p>(a) That since the “loaded” cars in question were not “consigned to or from said proposed station” or “to or from any industry......located on property......owned by the steel company,” they were not comprehended by the contract in suit, and hence no recovery could be had in the present suit.</p> <p>(b) That the subsequent special reference to certain classes of cars, meant that, even if such ears happened to fall within the first mentioned kinds, no charge could be made in connection with their transportation.</p>