Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Minds, 250 U.S. 368 (1919)

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 250 U.S. 363, click here.

Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Minds

No. 293, 294

Argued April 23, 1919
Decided June 9, 1919
250 U.S. 368

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Syllabus

In actions upon two closely related reparation orders, held that a mistake in the declarations transposing the awards, first discovered by the district court near the close of the trial, was subject to correction by amendment in that court’s discretion. P. 370.

Where a railroad company, guilty of unlawful discrimination in car distribution, for years contested the claims of the injured shippers, and offered no payment of awards for damages and interest made by the Interstate Commerce Commission, it is not erroneous in actions upon the awards to permit the jury to allow interest in its verdicts, even though the shippers’ claims were excessive. P. 370.

In actions on reparation orders, held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in fixing counsel fees, or commit error in its charge as to the cost of producing coal, as an element in the damages. P. 371.

In such an action, where there was expert evidence tending to prove (as in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Jacoby & Co., 242 U.S. 89) that the Commission’s award was based upon tables of car distribution which, if followed in practice, would have given the complaining shippers the illegal preference of which they complained, held that the railroad was entitled to an instruction that the award should be disregarded if the Commission followed such tables, and that refusal of its request for such instruction would be substantial error notwithstanding there was other evidence as to the damages and the verdict was much less than the award. Id.

Where it is obvious from remarks of the trial judge at the close of his charge that he has inadvertently overlooked one of several requests to charge, and opportunity is expressly given to suggest the omission, failure to avail of the opportunity waives the error in not granting the request; a general exception to refusals to charge as requested will not suffice. P. 373.

244 F. 53 affirmed.

The cases are stated in the opinion.