Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

94 U.S. 179

Chicago Milwaukee and St Paul Railroad Company v. Ackley

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1876

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1876-10

<p>A railroad company in Wisconsin cannot recover for the transportation of property more than the maximum fixed by the act of that State of March 11,1874, by showing that the amount charged was no more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered.</p>

2 counsel of record

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Granger Cases”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 7–2 · Opinion by Morrison Remick Waite · Decided 1876-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1913

6 state decisions

5018761880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin.

Mr. John W. Cary for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. I. C. Sloan, contra.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

¶1

The only question presented by this record is whether a railroad company in Wisconsin can recover for the transportation of property more than the maximum fixed by the act of March 11, 1874, by showing that the amount charged was no more than a reasonable compensation for the services rendered.

¶2

What we have already said in Peik v. Chicago & North-western Railway Company, and Lawrence v. Same, supra, p. 164, is applicable to this case. As between the company and a freighter, there is a statutory limitation of the charge for transportation actually performed. If the company should refuse to carry at the prices fixed, and an attempt should be made to forfeit its charter on that account, other questions might arise, which it will be time enough to consider when they are presented. But for goods actually carried, the limit of the recovery is that prescribed by the statute.

¶3

Judgment affirmed.

¶4

MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR. JUSTICE STRONG dissented.

/94/us/179 · .json · Public domain