Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. Anderson-Tully Co. - 256 U.S. 408 (1921)


U.S. Supreme Court

Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co. v. Anderson-Tully Co., 256 U.S. 408 (1921)

Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Company v. Anderson-Tully Company

No. 270

Argued March 24, 1921

Decided May 16, 1921

256 U.S. 408

Syllabus

1. The provision of the amended Interstate Commerce Act allowing an action to enforce a reparation order to be brought in any district "through which the road of the carrier runs" (§ 16, c. 309, 36 Stat. 539, 554) applies to a district where the defendant owns no railroad, but has its cars hauled by, and over the line of, another carrier for a mileage compensation to and from a point therein where both share the expenses of freight and ticket offices at which the defendant issues tickets and bills of lading to the points on its system outside pursuant to tariffs making no divisions of rates between the two. P. 256 U. S. 411.

Page 256 U. S. 409

2. This provision as to venue was not repealed by the legislation abolishing the Commerce Court, 38 Stat. 219. P. 256 U. S. 413.

3. Under the Federal Railroad Control Act, § 10, c. 25, 40 Stat. 456, an action to enforce a reparation order based on a shipment which moved before the government took control of the defendant carrier's railroad could be brought against the carrier while such control existed. P. 256 U. S. 412.

4. A return showing service of summons in such an action on a person described as the carrier's freight agent is not impeached by the fact that the government was in control of the railroad at the time in the absence of proof that he was employed by the Director General of Railroads, and not also as agent of the carrier. P. 256 U. S. 412.

5. A general finding by the district court in an action at law tried without a jury is conclusive upon all matters of fact, and, in the absence of exceptions to rulings of law during the trial, review in this Court is limited to the sufficiency of the complaint. P. 256 U. S. 414.

6. A petition, in an action to enforce a reparation order, held sufficient under § 16 of the amended Interstate Commerce Act, supra, prescribing that such a petition shall set forth briefly the causes for which damages are claimed and the order of the Commission in the premises. P. 256 U. S. 415.

7. The pendency of a carrier's application for relief under § 4 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended in 1910, did not suspend the Commission's power to award reparation for past exactions of an unreasonable rate which the carrier itself corrected by amending its tariffs after the petition for reparation was filed. P. 256 U. S. 416.

261 F. 741 affirmed.

Error to review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals affirming a judgment for the shipper in an action brought in the district court to enforce a reparation order made by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 256 U. S. 410



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.