In a suit against a carrier for services for handling grain
through plaintiff's elevators, the referee rejected evidence as to
the ownership of almost the entire stock of the elevator company by
a member of the firm which shipped the grain, and also an opinion
of the Interstate Commerce Commission of later date than the
services rendered.
Held: that, as the offer of evidence did not bring in
the Act to Regulate Commerce and allege that the plaintiff was
merely acting as a tool for the shipper to obtain rebates, the
action was merely one for services, and, no federal question being
involved this Court has no jurisdiction under 237, Judicial Code,
to review the judgment of the state court.
Writ of error to review 246 Pa.St. 336 dismissed.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court to
review judgments of the state court under § 237, Judicial Code, are
stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit by the defendant in error to recover reasonable
compensation for services rendered in handling grain through its
elevators. The plaintiff proved to the satisfaction
Page 237 U. S. 433
of the referee to whom the parties agreed to submit the case
that 35 cents a ton, the rate demanded, was a reasonable rate. To
meet this, the defendant offered to prove that Harvey C. Miller
owned 93.6 percent of the plaintiff's stock; that he also was a
member of the firm of L. F. Miller & Sons, for which 90 percent
of the plaintiff's business now in question was done; that the
grain handled came from other states over the defendant's lines;
that competitors of L. F. Miller & Sons received grain from the
same point at the same rate, but did not have any elevator, perform
any elevator service, or receive compensation for such service;
that the plaintiff's books showed that the plaintiff and Harvey C.
Miller had received from the payments already made by the defendant
and consignees the actual cost of the services rendered, with a
reasonable profit, the defendant contending that further payment
would be contrary to the Act to Regulate Commerce, and finally an
opinion and order of the Interstate Commerce Commission of later
date than the service rendered and the bringing of this suit. This
evidence was rejected and the Supreme court of Pennsylvania
sustained the referee, rightly observing that the one question
before him was what the plaintiff's services were reasonably worth.
246 Pa. 336.
There was no complaint that the rate was unreasonable, but only
a wrong conception of the grounds upon which an advantage might be
pronounced undue. There was no offer to prove that L. F. Miller
& Company were using the plaintiff as a tool for the purpose of
obtaining a rebate. The offer did not go far enough to bring in the
act of Congress, and was not made in an effort to prove that an
unreasonable rate was charged.
Writ of error dismissed.