J. A. Barris & Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court. — Hon. N. W. Macy, Judge During June, and up to July 20, 1893, the plaintiff firm shipped over defendant’s line of road, in carload lots, sand from different points in Iowa to Crestón, Iowa, for which the company received payment.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court. — Hon. N. W. Macy, Judge During June, and up to July 20, 1893, the plaintiff firm shipped over defendant’s line of road, in carload lots, sand from different points in Iowa to Crestón, Iowa, for which the company received payment. This action is to recover overcharges, being in excess of reasonable rates, it being averred that such excess is in the sum of three hundred and thirteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, the recovery being sought in three times that sum, under the provisions of chapter 28, Acts Twenty-second G-eneral Assembly, The answer is a…
1Opinion of the CourtGranger, J.
The facts appear mainly by stipulation. The schedule of rates as provided by the board of railroad commissioners of this state, and in opera-, tion from 1889 to March 1,1898, fixed the rate for sand; the same as for soft coal. By a provision of the tariff . rates that took effect March 1, 1893, the classification of sand was changed to class E, which gave it a higher rate. Because of a complaint to the commissioners, of which the defendant company had notice, on July 20,1893, sand was changed to its former classification, with a rate the same as soft coal. The difference in the schedule rates…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- Sorrell & Nall v. Central RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- McGrew v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893