Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. Feintuch
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Action by M. Feintuch and the Newton Gum Company against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Southern Pacific Company, and the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fé Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Action by M. Feintuch and the Newton Gum Company against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the Southern Pacific Company, and the Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fé Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. This is an action instituted under the interstate commerce act, by defendants in error against plaintiffs in error, to recover for reparation in pursuance of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission directing that the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoeverton, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The defendants’ fourth contention will be first examined. It is that:
“The commission has no power to award reparation, nor has the court below power to uphold an order for reparation, unless actual injury has been sustained from an omission or failure to observe some requirement of the act, and, in order to recover, pecuniary injury must be shown to entitle the complainant to damages in such a case.”
In other words, it is thought the shipper sustains no injury, unless . it be shown that the freight charges imposed are unreasonable and unjust. Under the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Parsons v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Western New York & P. R. Co. v. Penn Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1905
- Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Michigan Cent. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Berríos v. Eastern Sugar AssociatesSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1956
- National Elevator Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917
- Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-Operative Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925
- Southern Ry. Co. v. EichlerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Russe & Burgess v. Interstate Commerce CommissionCommerce Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.