{
  "id": 2759039,
  "name": "John T. Backman, Defendant in Error, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Backman v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,288",
  "first_page": "269",
  "last_page": "272",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 269"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 5408,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "sha256": "cc6e351527840b6de01fe3f24963d3a2fc55693445deef78a728ee4774dcf5cb",
    "simhash": "1:dbc2fcfd0447e4af",
    "word_count": 910
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:54.106977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John T. Backman, Defendant in Error, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff purchased for $101.65 a ticket from the agent of defendant at Findlay, Ohio, for the transportation of a special baggage car containing trained animals from Findlay to La Crosse, Wisconsin. From Chicago the car was to be hauled by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, but upon its arrival in Chicago the St. Paul road refused to haul the same as baggage, because of its rule then in force that such a shipment as this was must go by freight or express. Plaintiff thereupon paid to the St. Paul road the charge for such freight, amounting to $160.39, and incurred the additional expense of $19.89 by reason of the delay in moving the car in Chicago, and brought suit against the defendant to recover these amounts.\nDefendant claims that its agent was in error as to the rules and scheduled rates of the St. Paul road covering this class of shipments; that the tariff schedule of the St. Paul road, filed and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, must control, and that the defendant is liable only for the portion of the sum paid it by plaintiff which was for transportation on the St. Paul road, which portion is $67.75.\nThe case was tried by the court upon a stipulation of facts and certain documentary evidence, and after hearing judgment was entered for the full amount claimed by the plaintiff, viz., $180.28.\nCounsel for defendant say in their brief: \u201cThe only question presented by the records is this: Where a rate different from the regular published interstate commerce rate was agreed upon by the agent of the defendant and the plaintiff from Findlay, Ohio, to La Crosse, Wis., and the regular published interstate commerce rate was demanded and collected at destination, can the excess between the regular published rate and the contract price be recovered by the plaintiff 1\u201d Apparently there is no conflict upon this proposition between opposing counsel, for the attorney for the plaintiff in his brief says: \u201cThere can be no question but that if the Interstate Commerce Commission rules and regulations covered the shipment of the defendant in error, then if a mistake in the charge had been made, the correct amout could be charged upon a discovery of the error.\u201d The only question, therefore, before this court seems to be the construction of section eight of the stipulation as to the facts, which section is as follows :\n\u201cEighth:\u2014That the charges assessed by the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company amounting to $160.39, and paid by the plaintiff to said Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway were based upon tariff I. C. C.-A-7890, C. M. & St. P.-G. F. D.\u2014 No. 47000, the freight tariff in .effect at the time the shipment moved, and which was filed and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.\u201d\nThe tariff schedule referred to in this section was not introduced in evidence, and it is argued by the plaintiff that therefore there was no evidence before the court that the charge made by the St. Paul road, and which was based upon this tariff schedule, was correct. We think the fair and reasonable construction of this section of the statement of fact is as if it read that the charges by the St. Paul road were in accordance with the tariff schedule filed and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission. It is conceded that the rate fixed in the tariff schedule should control as the correct rate, and a stipulation that the charge of $160.39 assessed by the St. Pa\u00fal road was based upon that schedule must be held to mean that the tariff schedule authorized the charge of that amount.\nA liability is admitted by defendant in its affidavit of merits \u201cfor the sum of $67.50, which is the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company\u2019s proportion of rate from Findlay, Ohio, to La Crosse, Wis., had the shipment moved to destination under the rate quoted by the agent of the defendant at Findlay, Ohio.\u201d\nIt is also stipulated that \u201cplaintiff was compelled to expend $19.89 on account of the delay caused in Chicago through defendant\u2019s failure to move the car from Chicago on time.\u201d From these admissions it is clear that plaintiff is entitled to judgment for these amounts, which total $87.39. If, therefore, plaintiff will, within ten days from the filing of this opinion, enter a remittitur of $92.89, the judgment herein will be affirmed; otherwise the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.\nAffirmed upon remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.\nRemittitur filed and judgment affirmed November 18, 1912.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Glennon, Cary, Walker & Howe, for plaintiff in error; L. J. Hackney, of counsel.",
      "Edward R. Litzinger, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John T. Backman, Defendant in Error, v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,288.\nStipulation of fact\u2014as to freight charges. Where parties stipulate that charges assessed by a carrier and paid by plaintiff were based upon a tariff in effect at the time the shipment moved and \u201d which was filed and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission, it is fair and reasonable to construe such statement to mean that the charges were in accordance with the schedule.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Frederick L. Fake, Jr., Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1911.\nAffirmed on remittitur.\nOpinion filed November 7, 1912.\nGlennon, Cary, Walker & Howe, for plaintiff in error; L. J. Hackney, of counsel.\nEdward R. Litzinger, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0269-01",
  "first_page_order": 287,
  "last_page_order": 290
}