|
|
Chicago, Etc. v. Acme Freight, Inc., 336 U.S. 465 (1949)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Chicago, Etc. v. Acme Freight, Inc., 336 U.S. 465 (1949)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 336 U.S. 460, click here.
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R. Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc. No. 65 Argued December 8, 1948 Decided April 4, 1949 336 U.S. 465
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Under Part IV of the Interstate Commerce Act, and specifically 49 U.S.C. § 1013, a freight forwarder is a shipper (rather than an initial carrier) vis-a-vis the railroads, and must file loss or damage claims against them within the nine-month period specified in the railroad bill of lading. Pp. 466-489.
1. The language and legislative history of § 1013 clearly indicate that forwarders were not given the right over under 49 U.S.C. § 20(12) against the railroads. Pp. 470-476.
2. A contrary construction would be out of harmony with the previously existing relationship between forwarders and carriers regulated by Parts I, II, and III of the Interstate Commerce Act, which relationship Part IV accepted and continued. Pp. 476-479.
3. The factors which make the Carmack Amendment workable as between carriers are totally absent when the right over given by 49 U.S.C. § 20(12) is sought to be extended to freight forwarders. Pp. 479-483.
4. Equitable considerations do not require a different result. Pp. 483-489.
(a) The Act leaves freight forwarders of the kind regulated by Part IV in substantially the same position they previously held with respect to their liability to shippers and their rights against underlying carriers. Pp. 484-487.
(b) That § 20(11) forbids forwarders to limit to less than nine months the period within which claims must be filed by their shippers, and that forwarders must file their claims against the railroads within the same period is not sufficient to require a different result. The Interstate Commerce Commission has the experience and authority to prescribe the proper corrective for this inconsistency. Pp. 488-489.
166 F.2d 778, reversed.
In a suit for a declaratory judgment, a federal district court held that, under 49 U.S.C. § 1013, a freight forwarder must file loss or damage claims against a railroad within the nine-month period specified by a railroad bill of lading. The Court of Appeals reversed. 166 F.2d 778. This Court granted certiorari. 335 U.S. 807. Reversed, p. 489.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Chicago, Etc. v. Acme Freight, Inc., 336 U.S. 465 (1949) in 336 U.S. 465 336 U.S. 466. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KTSUFIL13HK9LUE.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Chicago, Etc. v. Acme Freight, Inc., 336 U.S. 465 (1949), in 336 U.S. 465, page 336 U.S. 466. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KTSUFIL13HK9LUE.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Chicago, Etc. v. Acme Freight, Inc., 336 U.S. 465 (1949). cited in 1949, 336 U.S. 465, pp.336 U.S. 466. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KTSUFIL13HK9LUE.
|