Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States
District Court, S.D. Ohio
At Raw. Actions by the Procter & Gamble Company and by the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company against the United States. On demurrers to petitions. The above cases arose under title 5, §§ 500-503, of the Revenue Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 315), and title 5, §§ 500-502, of the Revenue Act of 1918 (Comp. St. Ann.
Read the full summary
At Raw. Actions by the Procter & Gamble Company and by the Buckeye Cotton Oil Company against the United States. On demurrers to petitions. The above cases arose under title 5, §§ 500-503, of the Revenue Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 315), and title 5, §§ 500-502, of the Revenue Act of 1918 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 6309%a-63091/ic), imposing a tax on the amount paid for transportation, and involved the question of whether demurrage charges for failure to load and unload cars within the “free time” permitted by the rules of railroad comi>anies should be included as part of tbe cost of…
1Opinion of the Court
SATER, District Judge.
In each case a demurrer has been filed to the petition, and should, in my judgment, be sustained for the following reasons:
[1] 1. Demurrage is a terminal charge—a part of the charge for transportation. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. U. S., 188 Fed. 879, 884-886, 110 C. C. A. 513; Wilson Produce Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 14 Interst. Com. Com’n R., 170, 174; Michie v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (C. C.) 151 Fed. 694. If it be conceded that the purpose of demur-rage is primarily to prevent the detention of cars, the enforcement of its payment is also to be regarded as a part of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Hardwick Farmers Elevator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Chesebrough v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- United States v. New York & Cuba Mail Steamship Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Lehigh Valley R. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Michie v. New York, N. H. & H. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fox v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1923
- Swift & Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956