Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Great Northern Railway Company Et Al. v. Merchants Elevator Company

• 1921 • 259 U.S. 285 • Taft Court
In the 1921 case of Great Northern Railway Company et al. v. Merchants Elevator Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Merchants Elevator Company. The dispute revolved around whether or not a railway company could charge for storage on cars that were detained beyond a certain period due to lack of shipping instructions from the consignee (the receiver). The court held that such charges were unlawful under Section 15 of Interstate Commerce Act which prohibits carriers from charging...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taft Court
Term: 1921
Docket: 202
259 U.S. 285
42 S. Ct. 477
66 L. Ed. 943
1922 U.S. LEXIS 2483
Argued: Apr 18, 1922

Great Northern Railway Company Et Al. v. Merchants Elevator Company

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1921 case of Great Northern Railway Company et al. v. Merchants Elevator Company, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Merchants Elevator Company. The dispute revolved around whether or not a railway company could charge for storage on cars that were detained beyond a certain period due to lack of shipping instructions from the consignee (the receiver). The court held that such charges were unlawful under Section 15 of Interstate Commerce Act which prohibits carriers from charging more than just and reasonable rates for services rendered. This decision was based on an interpretation that demurrage charges (penalties for exceeding allotted time) should be seen as penalties designed to promote car efficiency rather than as compensation for use of cars as warehouses, thus they cannot exceed what is necessary to achieve this purpose.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Great Northern Railway Company et al. v. Merchants Elevator Company, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to allow a shipper to recover damages from a carrier due to delay in transportation was incorrect and not supported by precedent or law. He contended that there is no legal obligation for carriers to provide prompt delivery unless explicitly stated in their contract with shippers, which was not the case here. Furthermore, he pointed out that delays are often unavoidable due to various factors such as weather conditions and mechanical issues; therefore it would be unreasonable and unfair to hold carriers liable for them without clear contractual obligations specifying otherwise.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: May 29, 1922
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms