EDWARD HINES TRUSTEES V. UNITED STATES, 263 U. S. 143 (1923)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 263 U. S. 143
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/263/143/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/263/143/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Edward Hines Trustees v. United States, 263 U.S. 143 (1923)
Edward Hines Trustees v. United States
No. 91
Argued October 18, 19, 1923
Decided November 12, 1923
263 U.S. 143
Syllabus
1. To maintain a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the ground that it exceeded the powers of the Commission, it is not essential that a plaintiff should have been a party to the proceedings before the Commission in which the order was made. P. 263 U. S. 147.
2. But to maintain such a suit, the plaintiff must show that the order alleged to be void subjects him to actual or threatened legal injury. P. 263 U. S. 148.
3. Where the interest shown by a group of lumber manufacturers in attacking an order of the Commission which abolished a penalty charge on lumber held at reconsignment points was in the handicap which the charge imposed on competing jobbers, and in the possibility that its removal might divert the cars of carriers, including those of their own projected railroad, from transportation to storage users, held that they had no standing to sue to set the order aside
on the ground that it exceeded the power of the Commission and violated the rights of carriers under the Fifth Amendment. Id.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing the bill in a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.