Interstate shipments of perishable freight were consigned,
subject to lawful charges, to a commission merchant, which paid the
charge demanded by the terminal carrier, accepted the freight, sold
it, and remitted the net proceeds to the consignors without having
possession of the bills of lading or knowledge of their terms and
conditions. By mistake of the carrier, the charges collected were
less than the lawful rates established under the Interstate
Commerce Act.
Held that the commission merchant was liable
for the balance, irrespective of contract and as a matter of law.
P.
256 U. S. 408.
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. Co. v.
Fink, 250 U. S. 577.
230 Mass. 206 reversed in part and affirmed in part.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Neither party was wholly successful in the courts below. 230
Mass. 206 (May 24, 1918). Each has
Page 256 U. S. 407
asked and obtained a writ of error and also a writ of
certiorari. The latter properly bring the issues before us, and the
former must be dismissed.
The railroad company, as terminal carrier, sued York &
Whitney Company, a commission merchant, to recover the balance
claimed for freight and refrigeration on nine carloads of melons,
vegetables, and fruit consigned to the latter, subject to lawful
charges, and delivered at Boston during the years 1911 and 1912.
They were shipped in interstate commerce upon straight bills of
lading approved as to form by the Interstate Commerce Commission,
but none of these came into the consignee's possession, and it had
no knowledge of their issuance or terms.
When York & Whitney Company accepted the cars, it paid all
charges claimed. The merchandise was sold at once, and the net
proceeds remitted to the shippers. Later, the railroad company
discovered that it had collected less than lawful rates established
under the Interstate Commerce Act, and thereupon demanded the
balance alleged to be due by reason of such undercharges.
Maintaining it had accepted the shipments upon the understanding
that the charges were as reported, and had not agreed to pay more,
York & Whitney Company refused the demand.
Commission merchants often receive from strangers shipments of
perishable articles for sale at market prices. Under a trade
custom, such things are promptly disposed of, and the net proceeds
remitted to the consignors. Successful conduct of the business
requires prompt settlements. The court below held that whether York
& Whitney Company impliedly agreed to pay the rates imposed by
law was a question of fact to be determined upon consideration of
all the circumstances. It accordingly approved a judgment, entered
upon a verdict, favorable to that company as to charges upon one
carload
Page 256 U. S. 408
(No. 280), and in behalf of the railroad for those claimed on
account of eight carloads (No. 281).
We think the doctrine announced in
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati,
Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Fink, 250 U.
S. 577 (November 10, 1919), is controlling, and that the
liability of York & Whitney company was a question of law. The
transaction between the parties amounted to an assumption by the
consignee to pay the only lawful rate it had the right to pay or
the carrier the right to charge. The consignee could not escape the
liability imposed by law through any contract with the carrier.
The judgment of the court below in No. 280, so far as
challenged, must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The judgment in No.
281, so far as challenged, is affirmed.