Union Pacific R. Co. v. Updike Grain Co., 222 U.S. 215 (1911)

Union Pacific Railroad Company

v. Updike Grain Company
No. 34. Argued November 2, 3, 1911

Decided December 11, 1911
222 U.S. 215

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Diffenbaugh, ante, p. 42, followed to effect that, under the Interstate Commerce Law, as amended by the Act of June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 590, elevation of grain is included in transportation, and, subject to the power of the Commission to determine the reasonableness of the payments, carriers can compensate owners of grain in transit for elevation services rendered in connection therewith.

Although a carrier may have had an ulterior motive in establishing a general rate of compensation for services rendered to it in connection with goods in transit, the real consideration is the service rendered; and even if the carrier does not realize the desired benefit, it cannot deprive one actually rendering the service of the compensation on the ground of noncompliance with regulations of an association of which the carrier is a member and over which the party rendering the service has no control.

A carrier must treat all alike. It cannot pay one shipper for services rendered to his goods in transit and, by enforcing an arbitrary rule, deprive another shipper rendering similar services of compensation therefor.

A rule apparently fair on its face and reasonable in its terms may, in fact, be unfair and unreasonable if it operates so as to give one an advantage of which another similarly situated cannot avail.

In this case, held that the Union Pacific Railroad Company could not refuse to pay the owner of an elevator located on other railroads compensation for elevating grain similar to that paid to owners of elevators located on its own railroad on account of failure to return cars within an arbitrary and unreasonable time fixed by the Union Pacific; but also held that such cars should be returned within a reasonable time in order to entitle the parties rendering service to compensation therefor.

178 F. 223 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.