New York v. United States - 257 U.S. 591 (1922)


U.S. Supreme Court

New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591 (1922)

New York v. United States

No. 283

Argued October 19, 20, 1921

Decided February 27, 1922

257 U.S. 591

Syllabus

1. Absence of any substantial evidence to sustain a finding of the Interstate Commerce Commission material to an order adjusting rates may be relied on in a suit directly attacking the order to

Page 257 U. S. 592

which the United States and the Commission are made parties. P. 257 U. S. 600.

2. Evidence found insufficient to sustain an order for a general increase of state passenger, baggage, and milk rate as prejudicial to persons and localities in interstate commerce, under § 416 (§ 13, paragraph 4) of the Transportation Act of 1920. P. 257 U. S. 600. Cf. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., ante, 257 U. S. 563.

3. Interference with a charter fare-limiting contract between a railroad and a state is not a taking of the property of the state or its people without due process of law when done under the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, nor doe the contract clause of the Constitution forbid. P. 257 U. S. 600.

4. Intrastate rates so low that they discriminate against interstate commerce, within the meaning of the Transportation Act of 1920, may constitutionally be increased thereunder by the Interstate Commerce Commission to conform with like rates in interstate commerce fixed by it pursuant to the act. P. 257 U. S. 601. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co., ante, 257 U. S. 563.

272 F. 758 affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing a bill brought by appellants against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission to annul an order of the latter authorizing an increase of intrastate railroad rates. Various carriers intervened and became appellees.

Page 257 U. S. 597



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.