Davis v. Henderson
Headline: Carrier tariff rule requiring written car orders enforced, reversing a shipper’s verdict and making oral notice ineffective for cattle shippers waiting for transportation.
Holding: The Court said the carrier’s published tariff requiring written orders for cars could not be waived by oral notice, and therefore the shipper could not recover without written notice.
- Requires shippers to follow written-order rules in carrier tariffs.
- Makes oral orders ineffective when tariff demands written notice.
- Strengthens carriers’ defenses in shipment delay claims.
Summary
Background
Henderson, a cattle shipper, sued an interstate railroad then under federal control after the carrier failed to furnish a freight car within a reasonable time following his notice. The carrier relied on a rule approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission and published in its tariff that orders for cars must be placed with the local agent in writing. Henderson testified he gave oral notice and that the station agent accepted it. The trial court refused to tell the jury that written notice was required, the jury returned a verdict for Henderson, and the State’s highest court affirmed the judgment.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the carrier’s published rule could be treated as waived by an agent’s oral acceptance. The Court held the rule could not be waived. It explained that the transportation service was that of a common carrier under published tariffs, and the written-order requirement was part of the tariff and therefore binding. The opinion states there was no claim the tariff rule itself was void. The Court dismissed the writ of error (citing the Act of September 6, 1916), granted certiorari, and reversed the state-court judgment.
Real world impact
The ruling makes clear that shippers must comply with written-order requirements found in carriers’ published tariffs; an agent’s oral acceptance does not substitute for the required written notice. The decision overturns the jury verdict and state-court affirmation, strengthens carriers’ defenses based on tariff terms, and raises the evidentiary burden on shippers seeking recovery for delayed or missing cars.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?