To the railroad's action to recover unpaid freight, the shipper set up as a counterclaim his loss (an amount greater than the freight) from damage to that shipment due to the plaintiff's negligence. The United States district court for the southern district of California held for the defendant, that this might be done. Upon appeal, the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit certified the question: Where a carrier brings an action at law to recover freight charges-in a district where state law provides that if a defendant fails to set up a counterclaim arising out of the transaction on which the plaintiff's claim is based he can not thereafter maintain an action upon the same-is the shipper, acting in good faith and without collusion, barred by the Interstate Commerce Act from counterclaiming for a loss due to the carrier's failure to perform its obligations concerning that identical shipment? Held, that the question be answered, no, that this is not such discrimination as to violate the Act. Chicago and N. W. Ry v. Lindell, 281 U. S. 14, so Sup. Ct. 200, (Adv. Ops. 272).