Legal Opinion

Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. E. C. Tecktonius Mfg. Co.

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Decided February 2, 1920PublishedCited by 12 opinions

At Law. Action by the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company against the E. C. Tecktonius Manufacturing Company. On demurrer to counterclaim. Plaintiff sues to recover tariff charges, accruing to it and connecting carriers on certain freight transported for defendant. The latter, by counterclaim, seeks to recover damages for loss of freight intrusted on other occasions to plaintiff for transportation. Plaintiff demurs to the counterclaim as not pleadable in this action.

1Opinion of the Court

GEIGER, District Judge.

Concededly the parties could, by independent actions, assert their grievances; and ordinarily whichever sued first thereby furnished to the other the occasion to assert his *716or its by counterclaim. It is urged that the counterclaim by the shipper should not be allowed, because thereby he may defer, and therefore, if successful, may defeat, the discharge of the carrier’s obligation under the law to collect tariffs in money without abatement in any form, or, as is further suggested, he thereby may decline to pay an admitted obligation in order to set off an unliquidated…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. MottleySupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  2. Wells Fargo & Co. v. CuneoDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1917
  3. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. William S. Stein Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1915
  4. Illinois Cent. R. v. W. L. Hoopes & SonsDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1916
  5. Johnson-Brown Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1917

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. LindellSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
  2. Payne v. ClarkeDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1921
  3. C. E.R.R. Co. v. Lightfoot SonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
  4. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Tennessee Mill Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M., S. P. &. P. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1929

7 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