ICC v. Southern Pacific Co.,
Annotate this Case
234 U.S. 315 (1914)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
ICC v. Southern Pacific Co., 234 U.S. 315 (1914)
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pacific Company
Argued January 14, 15, 1914
Decided June 8, 1914
234 U.S. 315
APPEAL FROM THE COMMERCE COURT
Los Angeles Switching case, ante, p. 234 U. S. 294, followed and applied to similar switching charges made by railway companies in the City of San Francisco.
188 F. 241 reversed. :
The facts, which involve the validity of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission relative to switching charges within the yard limits of San Francisco, California, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Pacific Coast Jobbers' Manufacturers' Association complained before the Interstate Commerce Commission of a switching charge of $2.50 per car maintained by the respondents for delivering and receiving carload freight to and from industries located upon spurs and side tracks within the carriers' switching limits in San Francisco.
The Commission, finding the facts to be similar to those found in the case of the complaint of the Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles with respect to switching charges in the latter city (18 I.C.C. 310), entered a similar order prohibiting the carriers from continuing the charge. This suit was thereupon brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, First Division, against the Interstate Commerce Commission, to restrain the enforcement of the order. Upon its transfer to the Commerce Court, the United States intervened and moved to dismiss the proceeding. This motion was denied, and upon the application of the petitioners an injunction was granted.
The questions presented on the appeal from this order are the same as those which have been considered in the opinion of the court in No. 98, Los Angeles Switching Case, ante, p. 234 U. S. 294, and for the reasons there set forth the order of the Commerce Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, with instructions to dismiss the bill.
It is so ordered.