Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. St.P. & Pac. R. Co.
282 U.S. 520 (1931)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. St.P. & Pac. R. Co., 282 U.S. 520 (1931)

Fullerton Lumber Company v. Chicago, Milwaukee,

St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company

No. 47

Argued January 9, 1931

Decided February 24, 1931

282 U.S. 520

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Where a carrier accepts a check for the amount of freight charges, and a loss is suffered as a result of its unjustifiable delay in presenting it, the bank in the meantime having failed, the question whether the shipper is relieved of liability depends upon the general law applicable to payment by check, and not upon any provision of the Interstate Commerce Act. P. 282 U. S. 521.

36 F.2d 180 reversed

Certiorari, 281 U.S. 709, to review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals which affirmed a judgment of the district court in favor of the railroad company in an action to recover freight charges.

Page 282 U. S. 521

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Chicago, Milwaukee, Saint Paul & Pacific Railroad Company brought this action in the federal court for Minnesota to recover from the Fullerton Lumber Company freight charges on a carload of coal shipped to it. The case was tried without a jury. The defense was payment. It appeared that, upon delivery of the car, the carrier had, as customary, accepted the defendant's check on a local bank for the amount of the charges; that it had delayed presenting the check for payment, and that meanwhile the bank had failed. The defendant contended that it was relieved from liability because of the carrier's unjustifiable delay in presenting the check. The trial court ruled that the Interstate Commerce Act requires that a carrier's charges be paid strictly in currency, and that, since the check had not been paid, the defendant was liable even if the carrier's failure to receive the money was due wholly to its own negligence. Judgment entered for the carrier was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals, 36 F.2d 180. This Court granted a writ of certiorari. 281 U.S. 709.

It has long been settled that payment of a carrier's charges must be made in money, and that the payment must be cash, as distinguished from credit. * The purpose

Page 282 U. S. 522

of the requirement is solely to prevent rebates or unjust discrimination and to ensure observance of the tariff rates. Compare Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Lindell,281 U. S. 14, 281 U. S. 16. The Interstate Commerce Act does not in terms prescribe that the charges shall be paid in money -- that is, in coin or currency. There is no reason for denying to the parties the convenience and safety incident to making payment, in accordance with the prevailing usage of business, by means of a check payable on demand drawn on a going bank in which the drawer has an ample deposit.

Whether, in the case at bar, the defendant is liable depends not upon any provision of the Interstate Commerce Act, but upon the rules of law generally applicable to payment by check. These, and other questions which have been argued, need not be considered by us.

Reversed.

* Conference Ruling No. 207 of Interstate Commerce Commission (September 15, 1906); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley,219 U. S. 467, 219 U. S. 476; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. v. United States,219 U. S. 486; Chicago & North Western Ry. Co. v. Lindell,281 U. S. 14, 281 U. S. 16. Compare Ex parte No. 73, 57 I.C.C. 591, 596; 63 I.C.C. 375; 69 I.C.C. 351. Rules promulgated June 4, 1920, permitted the carrier to extend credit for ninety-six hours after delivery, and provided that "the mailing (within this prescribed period) by the shipper of valid checks, drafts, or money orders which are satisfactory to the carrier" should be deemed proper payment. Ex parte No. 73, Rule 5, 57 I.C.C. 596a, 596b.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.