Legal Opinion · Dissent

Oklahoma Belt R. Co. v. Schaff

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided June 16, 1922No. 5912Published

1DissentStone, Circuit Judge

I am compelled to dissent for the following reasons:

The law is that an interstate common carrier, when acting as a common carrier, is not permitted, through contract or otherwise, to depart from its lawfully established tariffs. L. & N. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, 35 Sup. Ct. 494, 59 L. Ed. 853,_ L. R. A. 1915E, 665, and citations therein. This rule is so strictly interpreted that the carrier cannot, as a common carrier, transport even its own property. As where a railway owning mines and selling coal undertook to ¿transport that coal and deliver it to a purchaser at less than the cost…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MaxwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
  3. Santa Fe, Prescott & Phœnix Railway Co. v. Grant Bros. Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Montgomery v. Chicago, B. &. Q. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API