Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. v. Wellborn Walls
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). Counsel for the defendant contend for a reversal of the judgment on the ground that, under the Interstate Commerce Act, it could not contract for a service not provided for in the tariff schedule filed by it or its connecting carriers with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that such a contract, if made by it with the shipper, is unenforceable. They point to the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the legal rights of the shipper as against the carrier are measured by the published tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Keogh v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1922
- New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Cunningham Commission Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- American Railway Express Co. v. H. Rouw Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. H. Rouw Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- H. Rouw Co. v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Campbell v. Parkin Home BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927