Davis v. Henderson, 266 U.S. 92 (1924)

U.S. Supreme Court

Davis v. Henderson, 266 U.S. 92 (1924)

Davis v. Henderson

No. 44

Submitted October 8, 1924

Decided October 27, 1924

266 U.S. 92

Syllabus

1. A judgment of a state court rendered against an interstate carrier, when under federal control, through failure to give effect to a rule in its tariff, held reviewable by certiorari, and not by writ of error. P. 266 U. S. 93

2. A tariff rule, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, providing that orders for cars given the carrier's local agent must be in writing cannot be waived by the carrier through the agent's acceptance of oral notice from the shipper. Id.

157 Ark. 43 reversed.

Error and certiorari to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirming a judgment against a carrier in an action by a shipper for failure to furnish a car within a reasonable time after notice.

Page 266 U. S. 93

U.S. Supreme Court

Davis v. Henderson, 266 U.S. 92 (1924)

Davis v. Henderson

No. 44

Submitted October 8, 1924

Decided October 27, 1924

266 U.S. 92

ERROR AND CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Syllabus

1. A judgment of a state court rendered against an interstate carrier, when under federal control, through failure to give effect to a rule in its tariff, held reviewable by certiorari, and not by writ of error. P. 266 U. S. 93

2. A tariff rule, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, providing that orders for cars given the carrier's local agent must be in writing cannot be waived by the carrier through the agent's acceptance of oral notice from the shipper. Id.

157 Ark. 43 reversed.

Error and certiorari to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirming a judgment against a carrier in an action by a shipper for failure to furnish a car within a reasonable time after notice.

Page 266 U. S. 93

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS, delivered the opinion of the Court.

Henderson, a shipper of cattle, brought this suit in a state court of Arkansas against an interstate carrier then under federal control. The cause of action alleged was failure to furnish a car within a reasonable time after notice. The carrier defended on the ground that the shipper had not complied with a rule, approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission and contained in its tariff, which provided that orders for cars must be placed with the local agent in writing. Written notice was not given. The plaintiff was permitted to testify that he had notified the station agent orally and that the latter had accepted his oral notice. The trial court refused to instruct the jury that the shipper could not recover without proving a notice in writing. Exceptions were duly taken. The plaintiff got the verdict, and the judgment entered thereon was affirmed by the highest court of the state. 157 Ark. 43. The carrier brought this writ of error, and also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, consideration of which was postponed until the hearing on the writ of error. The former must be dismissed. Act Sept. 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726. The writ of certiorari is now granted.

There is no claim that the rule requiring written notice was void. The contention is that the rule was waived. It could not be. The transportation service to be performed was that of common carrier under published tariffs. The rule was a part of the tariff. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Ry. Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U. S. 190, 241 U. S. 197; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Ward, 244 U. S. 383, 244 U. S. 388; Davis v. Cornwell, 264 U. S. 560, 264 U. S. 562.

Writ of error dismissed.

Writ of certiorari granted.

Judgment reversed.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.