Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. Hopkins
District Court, D. Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
NORDBYE, District Judge.
If the defense is sustainable, the question as to whether any undercharges are in fact due need not be decided. Briefly stated, the defense interposed is this: That the defendants are not liable for any undercharge which may be due because the bills of lading under which the shipments were carried provided by a signed stipulation that there should be no recourse against the consignors if delivery was made to the consignees without requiring payment of all freight charges.
The' shipments went forward under uniform bills of lading and delivery was accepted by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. FinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Central Iron & Coal Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- New York Cent. R. Co. v. Trans-American Petroleum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1939
- New York Cent. R. v. Little-Jones Coal Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1938
- Lowden v. Iroquois Coal Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1937
3Cited by5 opinions
- Illinois Steel Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. E. Bernier & Sons, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1944
- Transport Clearing Northwest v. Bardahl Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1978
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. C-G-F Grain Co.District Court, D. Kansas · 1982
- Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. BerganIdaho Supreme Court · 1978