| Show MUST ADHERE TO FREIGHT TARifFS Judge Ritchie Renders Decision In Which Agent Agreed to Lower Charge RAILWAY SUED FOR FULL RATE Courts In III Had Xo Sn Accept Shipment nt Any nr Hut Tariff unit Published J i M U I Ritchie RUehle of ot Ow the Third il court rt rendered a 1 I riston liften upholding freight tariffs of nf mil 1 roods 11 Mi lie fixed by the Interstate com mere of or MI h fact fal that thaI th Ute railroad by its n fa fatin tin the had contracted to haul baul the tr I Ifor fur for a lower rat te the tM published one Olle oneTh Th TIle dei ton wa In the tM oae of ot the t Un RAM company the Oo e Wagon Ma company lIAn THe TIte railroad company com pan ss a common transported Ort ment at f hay Imy for tor the on and m mi moi i company from pea Ida to toV V 11 low M nt and aM Ibe aon agon company paW paid for tM th service Ic at the th rule 1 of f U It tents e per er pounds poun the tha mi nl upon b tw n the Ut parties J rt Th rat r le on s t h MJ I however er erA MS A filed with and by the In let letMate Mate 1111 commerce U 19 iu 10 a hundred According to 10 th the rall mad tariff Th The railroad tl company 1111 to tl recover M alleging all that this sum um wan w dun Iu on th the r rale ral It was wa by b that the th general freight ag nt ot nt the Short Une hail hA 1 agreed to the II 11 cent rat and the company should therefore be beheld held to 10 the contract of ot Its IIA authorized agent It was waR also AI o contended that t tile tariff sheet het publishing the 19 cent rate rat wa wae rejected by the th commission as M bo boIng Ing Irregular In form torm and hence the commission had never approved that rale Defendant relied upon the ran eon tract to carry tho u hay at 14 It cents per per hundred and that If It the th higher high rate was wa Imposed Im the defendant would a II lo on th the shipment Judge Ritchie holds that defendant had no nn right to In rely upon th Ih rate fixed by the th agent a t of ot the th company high cr r low In authority bOate he 11 not lIot bind the th company by any AllY representation tion In the Ih face of nt the approval of nt the rate by the th commission A to the re rt rejection of nt the tariff schedule by the Interstate commerce C commission the th court Ourt held the ev d nc showed that the th reason allied 1 by b the clerk clrk nt f th thc the c n who returned the schedule for refusing to It II wall va that these the theono t on ono appeared nn on the Ih title pall page to 10 be lie accepted only at r e of t construction department depart ment A t the right of nt the th clerk to th Ih for fr the reason l Judg holds hI that thai so long as the run e U I fine f from ambiguity and andun un eruin and Its II application Is III at f f mid and definite the Ih c I ha no power po to I make regulations con enn I II In any other respect The Th Judge h ild Id that thai th tariff ritt wa wu aclu actu actual al all received by the th commission ce which th Ih duty lul Imposed Im upon the Ih commission of nr filing II and that Ihal In la the eye e of thi th tha law a on a Wag The tariff therefore fo as a nl to the Ihl the th Judge jud finds wa In effect It binding the Ih railroad company and the Ih defense The Th railroad company Is 10 given Iven Judg Judgment ment for tn the full tull amount a kd Ip the th |
