From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strawberry Growers' Selling Co. v. American Ry. Express Co.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 5, 1929
31 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1929)

Opinion

No. 5114.

April 5, 1929.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Louis H. Burns, Judge.

Suit by the American Railway Express Company against the Strawberry Growers' Selling Company, Inc. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Chas. T. Madison, of New Orleans, La., and W.S. Rownd, of Hammond, La., for plaintiff in error.

Selim B. Lemle, of New Orleans, La. (A.M. Hartung, of New York City, and Hunter C. Leake and Lemle, Moreno Lemle, all of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before BRYAN and FOSTER, Circuit Judges, and GRUBB, District Judge.


This was a suit to collect an undercharge in express rates upon interstate shipments of strawberries. It was brought more than two years, but less than three years, after the shipments were made.

The defenses were: (1) Prescription of two years under the Louisiana statute; and (2) estoppel, in that appellant had settled with the farmers whom it represented upon the basis of the rates charged and collected as the shipments were made.

As these were interstate shipments, the state statute of prescription does not apply. Suit within three years from the time the cause of action accrued is authorized by act of Congress. USCA tit. 49, § 16, par. 3(a).

The carrier was bound to collect the legal rate, and a shipper who has paid less cannot invoke the principle of estoppel. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U.S. 577, 40 S. Ct. 27, 63 L. Ed. 1151.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Strawberry Growers' Selling Co. v. American Ry. Express Co.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Apr 5, 1929
31 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1929)
Case details for

Strawberry Growers' Selling Co. v. American Ry. Express Co.

Case Details

Full title:STRAWBERRY GROWERS' SELLING CO., Inc., v. AMERICAN RY. EXPRESS CO

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Apr 5, 1929

Citations

31 F.2d 947 (5th Cir. 1929)

Citing Cases

Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. Paup

To say that either designedly or by mistake a situation such as this could be created, in which the rights of…

Sanantex Oil Co v. Thompson

As we understand the cases, the limitation statute with reference to interstate shipments is jurisdictional,…