Parsons v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to tlie Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District: of Iowa. Tins was an action for damages founded on the provisions of the act of congress of February 4. 18**7, commonly called the “Interstate Commerce Act” (.21 Slat. 379). Plaintiff in error, 1-1. M. Parsons, was the plaintiff in the trial court. There were live counts in The declaration.
Read the full summary
In Error to tlie Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District: of Iowa. Tins was an action for damages founded on the provisions of the act of congress of February 4. 18**7, commonly called the “Interstate Commerce Act” (.21 Slat. 379). Plaintiff in error, 1-1. M. Parsons, was the plaintiff in the trial court. There were live counts in The declaration. The first of these counts contained, in substance, the following allegations: That the defendant corporation, the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, is a common carrier of freight and passengers, and opéralos a line of…
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, Circuit Judge
This court held in the case of Railway Co. v. Osborne, 10 U. S. App. 430, 3 C. C. A. 347, and 52 Fed. 912, which suit grew out of the establishment by the defendant company of the same freight rate that gave rise to ¡.lie present action, that, wheie two connecting-carriers unite in putting in force a joint through tariff between given points, such joint tariff is not the standard by which the reasonableness of the local tariff on either line is to be determined. It was derided that, where two connecting carriers unite in a joint tariff, they form practically a new and independent line, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tozer v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri · 1892
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. OsborneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1892
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coeur d'Alene & Spokane Railway Co. v. Union Pacific RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1908
- Commonwealth v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903