Wiley Blount Rutledge

“ The test of creation may aid when origin is clear. [11] It is not conclusive when the source is hybrid, as is true of the carrier's contract, which has become a complex or resultant of the former freedom of contract and statutory restrictions. It does not follow from the survival of the common law elements, as respondent maintains, that Congress did not intend the limitation to be absolute. ”

“ And this seems impliedly conceded when the debate shifts, as it has to whether the policy of interstate commerce legislation contemplates the one result or the other. This is the controlling question. Respecting it the consistent patterns of legislation followed in the Act and of judicial decision in treating problems of time limitation and related questions arising under it furnish the more persuasive indicia of Congress' intention.
Section 16 is an integral part of the Interstate Commerce Act and of the comprehensive scheme of regulation it imposes. ”

“ Respondent attempts to avoid the conclusion to which the pattern points by urging that when the choice of extending the period is the carrier's rather than the shipper's, opportunities for discrimination disappear; and the policy otherwise embedded in Section 16 does not require enforcement of its terms. Rather, it says, to enforce them would violate the very policy upon which the Phillips case based the carrier's immunity to suit after the period. ”

“ Origin of the right is not per se conclusive whether the limitation of time 'extinguishes' it or 'merely bars the remedy' with the accepted alternative consequences respecting waiver. Source is merely evidentiary, with other factors, of legislative intent whether the right shall be enforceable in any event after the prescribed time, which is the ultimate question. ”

“ The section contains not one, but several limitations. All are of short duration. [13] They apply to various kinds of relief allowed in relation to matters governed by the Act. These include proceedings before the Commission and in the courts, by both shippers and carriers. The several provisions are cast in uniform terms. [14] Not all were brought into the section at the same time. But the legislative history shows a constant tendency toward making them uniform in time and the purpose of placing the carrier and the shipper on equal terms in this respect. ”

“ Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R.R., 268 U.S. 633, 45 S.Ct. 612, 69 L.Ed. 467.↑ Characteristically the inquiry follows this course too, however diverse the ultimate questions, in actions under wrongful death statutes, the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 51 et seq., or directors' liability statutes, whether the limitation is imposed in the act creating the liability or a different one. ”