Rowland v. BoyleAnnotate this Case
244 U.S. 106 (1917)
U.S. Supreme Court
Rowland v. Boyle, 244 U.S. 106 (1917)
Rowland v. Boyle
Argued February 24, 25, 1916
Restored to docket for reargument June 12, 1916
Reargued May 1, 2, 1917
Decided May 21, 1917
244 U.S. 106
Giving weight to the opinion of the district judge who tried the case, this Court, upon reviewing the evidence, agrees with his conclusion that, as applied to the appellee railroad company, the two-cent passenger rate fixed by the Arkansas Legislature, and freight rates fixed by the Arkansas Railroad Commission, are confiscatory.
An objection to evidence as hearsay is too late if not taken when the evidence was introduced.
While this cause was pending in the trial court, the appellee railroad company, for the purpose of allocating its expenses to intrastate and interstate freight and passenger traffic in Arkansas, caused minute and specific reports to be made by its employees of all facts that would throw light upon the problem in accordance with prescribed formula, and introduced the results in evidence, exhibiting the worksheets and other data to the appellant Railroad Commissioners, who had opportunity to question them and call for further investigation. Held that the returns were made by the employees in the course of their business, and that an objection that the evidence was hearsay could not in justice be entertained. Held further, that the two months of investigation afforded a basis for argument as to constant conditions.
The possible inaccuracy of apportioning general road maintenance expenses between freight and passenger service by engine-ton-miles considered and held not to affect the result of this case.
Whether adoption of the low rates fixed by the state would be followed by increased intrastate traffic and revenue held too remote and conjectural a matter to disturb the conclusion.
222 F. 539 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.