Legal Opinion

Granger v. Davis

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided December 8, 1924No. 4040PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MACK, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by James C. Davis, Director General, as Agent operating the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company, hereinafter designated as plaintiff, for certain demurrage charges accruing in January, February, April, and May, 1919, on cars of hay consigned to plaintiffs in error, hereinafter designated as defendants, under the uniform demurrage tariff, I. C. C. P. 1172. This tariff, duly filed, was applicable to both interstate and intrastate traffic. Judge PECK, to whom the ease was submitted with waiver of jury, sustained the demurrage…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Adams Express Company v. CroningerSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. FinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  3. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. LangerSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
  4. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. StarbirdSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  5. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad v. York & Whitney Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. Matthews Transfer Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1971
  3. (PC) Reed v. FoxDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
  4. (PS) Hanible v. County of Solano Sheriff's OfficeDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
  5. (PS) Kent v. Century Manor Trust LTDDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2019

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API