Pursuant to resolutions of the National Association of

Car Service Managers, this compilation of court decisions in car service or demurrage cases, is published as supplement number two.

This pamphlet includes all cases reported since the publication of supplement number one in March 1906, and is called for at this time by several members of the Association, because of its bearing upon what are called reciprocal demurrage laws.

A. G. THOMASON,

Secretary.

Scranton, Pa., September 29th, 1906.

Supreme Court of the United States

April, 1906.

The H. & T. C. R. R. Co. et. al., vs. John A. Mayes.

Action begun in District Court, Llano County, Texas,

to recover penalty against railroad for failure to
furnish stock cars.-Judgment given in favor of
plaintiff by District Court, and affirmed by Texas
Court of Civil Appeals.-Application to Supreme
Court of Texas for writ of error refused.-Appeal to
United States Supreme Court. - Railroad challenged
constitutionality of the Texas statute applied to
interstate commerce.-Court decides that the Texas
statute transcends the legitimate powers of the
Legislature. Judgment reversed and
manded.

-

case re-

1

Texas Court of Civil Appeals, Third District

April, 1906.

The H. & T. C. R. R. Co. vs. Buchanan.

Suit first brought by Buchanan for penalty against
H. & T. C. R. R. for failure to furnish seven
stock cars; and for damages against H. & T. C.
R. R. and A. T. & Santa Fe Ry. for moving ship-
ment by longest route. - District Court of Llano
County, Texas, gave verdict to Buchanan for both
penalty and damages.-R. R. Appealed.-Court of
Appeals ruled that the Texas statute did not penal-
ize railroads for failure to furnish cars to be used
beyond the line of the originating road.

8

Supreme Court of the United States.

May, 1906.

Franklin McNeill et. al., vs. Southern Ry.

Consignee refused to pay demurrage on cars loaded
with coal and wood, placed on private siding.-Rail-
road refused to place other cars on private siding,

15