Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

1931-02-24
Share:

Headline: Railroad loss reversed: Court allows a shipper’s bank check to count as freight payment, ruling federal railroad law does not force strict cash-only payments and sends the matter to ordinary check-law rules.

Holding: The Court held that the federal law governing railroads does not require payment strictly in coin and that a shipper’s check on a going bank can count as payment under ordinary check-law rules.

Real World Impact:
  • Allows shippers to use demand checks on solvent local banks as possible freight payment.
  • Prevents carriers from forcing cash-only payment solely because a check was unpaid.
  • Leaves unpaid-check disputes to ordinary bank and check law, not railroad statute.
Topics: freight charges, payment by check, railroad regulation, bank failures

Summary

Background

A railroad company sued a lumber company to recover freight charges for a carload of coal. The carrier accepted the lumber company’s check at delivery, which was customary. The carrier delayed presenting the check for payment, and before presentation the bank failed so the check went unpaid. The lumber company argued it was relieved from liability because of the carrier’s delay. The trial court held that the federal law governing railroads required payment strictly in currency, and judgment was entered for the carrier; the court of appeals affirmed and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the federal railroad statute requires payment only in coin or currency. The Court said the statute does not expressly require coin. It explained the statute’s purpose is to prevent rebates and unfair discrimination among shippers. The Court recognized the convenience and safety of ordinary business use of checks drawn on going banks with ample deposits. It held that whether the lumber company is liable depends on ordinary legal rules about payment by check, not on the railroad statute. The Court reversed the judgment below and declined to decide other related questions argued by the parties.

Real world impact

The decision affects everyday freight transactions between shippers and carriers. It permits acceptance of demand checks on solvent local banks to be treated as payment when commercial practice supports it. The ruling limits using the railroad statute to require strict cash-only payments and sends disputes about unpaid checks to ordinary banking and check-law rules. Because the Court left other issues undecided, liability may still turn on facts like delay or negligence in presenting the check.

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?

Related Cases