Carson Lumber Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; John C. Pollock, Judge. Action at law by the Carson Lumber Company against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; John C. Pollock, Judge. Action at law by the Carson Lumber Company against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff in error, a domestic corporation, doing a general wholesale and retail lumber business, with offices at Hugo in the state of Oklahoma, brought suit against the defendant railroad company to recover $4,449.19, claimed to be due it as a refund under a milling in transit arrangement accorded by a certain xmblished tariff of…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Valkenburgh, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] At the threshold of the case we encounter the'following disclosure made by the record:
“Comes now the Carson Lumber Company, plaintiff in the above-entitled action, and hereby enters satisfaction of judgment in the above-entitled case in accordance with the fifth paragraph of the agreed statement of facts covering rebate on eight interstate shipments amounting to $386.61, for which judgment was rendered in its favor on June 1, 1912.”
And the suggestion is made that plaintiff in error is estopped to prosecute this writ to the reversal of the decree below…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Armour Packing Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Reynes v. DumontSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Embry v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- United States v. DashielSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Luther v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954
- Spencer v. Babylon R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1918
- Kaiser v. Standard Oil Co. of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1937
- Armstrong v. Lone Star Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1927
- Finefrock v. Kenova Mine Car Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1930
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.