Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Adams Vs. Mills

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 23, 1932

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

52 entries 52 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 397 (1932) U.S. Supreme Court Adams v. Mills
    Search
  2. U.S. 397 (1932) Adams v. Mills
    Search
  3. Adams v. Mellon
    Search
  4. to the plaintiffs, who, as consignees, had paid the charge found unlawful. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Atchison
    Search
  5. the balance remaining. We think the argument unsound for the reasons, among others, stated in Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer
    Search
  6. Nashville R. Co. v. Page
    Search
  7. Steel & Iron Co., 269 U. S. 217 , 269 U. S. 234 -238. See also Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. Director
    Search
  8. Doughty-McDonald Grocery Co. v. Atchison
    Search
  9. California Fruit Exchange v. American
    Search
  10. if the merchandise had been delivered without payment of the full amount lawfully due. New York Central & H.R. Co. v. York
    Search
  11. Whitney Co., 256 U. S. 406 , 256 U. S. 407 -408. Compare Union Pac. R. Co. v. American
    Search
  12. In contemplation of law the claim for damages arose at the time the extra charge was paid. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer
    Search
  13. and the consignees, and the carriers cannot be allowed to import one into it. Compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield
    Search
  14. of the shippers in the proceeds of the action will not be affected by our decision. Compare Jennison Bros. & Co. v. Dixon
    Search
  15. Texas Livestock Shippers Protective League v. Director
    Search
  16. of the Interstate Commerce Act is not to be so construed. Compare Spiller v. Atchison
    Search
  17. was not a pure question of law to be determined by merely reading the tariffs. Compare Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Merchants'
    Search
  18. charge from the shippers was an unreasonable and unlawful practice must be sustained. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  19. unloading carload freight rests ordinarily upon the consignee. See National Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association v. Atlantic
    Search
  20. Compare Covington Stock-Yards Co. v. Keith
    Search
  21. a month, the railroads paid the yards company its charges for unloading. 2. Prior to the decision in United States v. Union
    Search
  22. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Atchison
    Search
  23. commissionmen. The Commission so found, and this Court has heretofore so recognized. See Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Chicago
    Search
  24. Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Stickney
    Search
  25. is that the consignee can do it more effectively than the carrier. See National Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Assn. v. Atlantic
    Search
  26. by the defendants that the Stock Yards Company had been found by this Court to be a common carrier, United States v. Union
    Search
  27. carriers, nor that it was entitled to collect a part of its charges from the shippers. Compare Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Reynolds-Davis
    Search
  28. Union Stockyards Co. v. United
    Search
  29. R. Co. v. Ault
    Search
  30. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Atchison
    Search
  31. charge was the subject of much litigation before the Commission and the courts. Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Chicago
    Search
  32. U. S. 98 . Compare Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago
    Search
  33. U.S. Supreme Court Adams v. Mills
    Search
  34. See Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Atchison
    Search
  35. Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer
    Search
  36. and Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Page
    Search
  37. Missouri Portland Cement Co. v. Director
    Search
  38. New York Central & H.R. Co. v. York
    Search
  39. Compare Union Pac. R. Co. v. American
    Search
  40. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Darnell-Taenzer
    Search
  41. Compare Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Sloss-Sheffield
    Search
  42. Compare Jennison Bros. & Co. v. Dixon
    Search
  43. Compare Spiller v. Atchison
    Search
  44. Compare Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Merchants'
    Search
  45. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. United
    Search
  46. See National Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association v. Atlantic
    Search
  47. United States v. Union
    Search
  48. See Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Chicago
    Search
  49. See National Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Assn. v. Atlantic
    Search
  50. Compare Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Reynolds-Davis
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial