The highest court of the state is the ultimate judge of the
extent of its jurisdiction, and unless a denial of federal rights
is involved, its decision upon that subject is final and
conclusive.
Where a carrier files a through joint rate with the Interstate
Commerce Commission to take effect on a specified date thereafter
and, prior to that date, the tariff is received and stamped by the
connecting carrier, which thereafter receives freight under the
schedule of the filed tariff, the rate becomes a joint one, and
there can be no departure therefrom.
Permitting a shipper to make freight payments on the basis of a
rate less than that specified in the filed tariff does not modify
the right of the parties to insist upon the legal rate as filed and
published.
Prior to the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission of May,
1907, requiring connecting carriers to accept joint rates
specifically, formal acceptance was not necessary, and the receipt
of the tariff and acceptance of freight thereunder was sufficient
to put the joint rate into effect.
Page 239 U. S. 447
The facts, which involve the validity of tariffs of rates filed
with the Interstate Commerce Commission by carriers and of charges
made by such carriers, are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Dayton Coal & Iron Company, Limited, hereinafter called
the Dayton Company, filed its bill in the Chancery Court at
Chattanooga, Tennessee, seeking to enjoin the Cincinnati, New
Orleans, & Texas Pacific Railway Company, generally known as,
and hereinafter called, the Southern Railway, from prosecuting a
certain suit in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, brought by the Southern Railway against the
Dayton Company to recover upon certain shipments of iron ore which
it was alleged had been shipped at a tariff of 70 cents per ton,
being 10 cents more per ton than the Dayton Company contended was
the true rate on such shipments. The difference amounted to
$4,933.08, for which sum the federal suit was brought.
The shipments of iron ore were made from Carterville, and other
points in Georgia, to Dayton, Tennessee, the Nashville,
Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway Company, operating the Western
& Atlantic Railroad Company, being the initial carrier. The
bill averred that the Dayton Company had a defense against the
action in the federal court, partly legal and partly equitable, and
that the
Page 239 U. S. 448
Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway Company and the
Western & Atlantic Railroad Company were necessary and proper
parties to the determination of the controversy, and were not
within the jurisdiction of the federal court. It was further
charged that the freight contract was binding upon all the parties
for 60 cents per ton, and that each and all of the defendants were
bound by that rate.
The Southern Railway answered, setting up, among other things,
that, according to the requirements of the Federal Act to Regulate
Commerce, as amended in 1906, the Nashville, Chattanooga, & St.
Louis Railway duly filed and published a schedule known as "Tariff
I.C.C. #1351A," showing the joint rate for the transportation of
iron ore from Cartersville, Georgia, and nearby points, to Dayton,
Tennessee, to be 70 cents a ton, and that that tariff became
effective on March 5th, 1907; that the Southern Railway was named
as one of the parties to this joint tariff, and it and the other
defendants were bound by it and prohibited by law from charging
more or less than the tariff named and filed; that, after the
tariff went into effect on March 5th, 1907, the Southern Railway
billed to the Dayton Company iron ore shipped from Cartersville,
Georgia, and from Emerson & Rogers, Georgia, to Dayton,
Tennessee, covered by the through tariff rate, filed as aforesaid
at the rate of 70 cents per ton, and insisted and still insists
upon the payment of that rate; that the Dayton Company, insisting
that the rate was 10 cents over the legal rate, had settled its
freight bills monthly, making a deduction of 10 cents by an
arrangement with the Southern Company; that the Dayton Company
refused to pay this difference, and therefore the suit was brought
in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, and that, before answering in that suit, complainant had
filed the present bill, though the suit in the United States court
was still pending and
Page 239 U. S. 449
undetermined. The other railroad companies defendants also filed
an answer, making like allegations as to the making and filing of
the 70-cent rate, effective March 5th, 1907.
The Southern Railway filed a cross-bill in which it again set up
the alleged legal effect of the filing of the 70-cent rate to take
effect on March 5th, 1907, averring that it had paid the Nashville,
Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway Company its proportion of said
rate, and that the difference between the 60- and 70-cent rate was
due to it from the Dayton Company, and asked that it be given
judgment upon its cross bill against that company on that account
for the sum of $4,933.08, or, if it should be determined that it
was not entitled thereto because of the illegality of the published
rate, made and insisted upon by the Nashville, Chattanooga, &
St. Louis Railway Company, that it have judgment for that amount
against its codefendant, the Nashville, Chattanooga, & St.
Louis Railway Company. Answers were filed to this cross-bill.
Upon hearing, the Chancery Court determined the case in favor of
the complainant, holding that the 70-cent rate was illegal,
inequitable, and unenforceable, and that the complainant was
entitled to the 60-cent rate, as contended for by it, and enjoined
the Southern Railway from prosecuting its suit in the federal court
except for certain items not included in the controversy about the
rates, and held that, upon the cross-bill, the Southern Railway was
entitled to recover from the Nashville, Chattanooga, & St.
Louis Railway Company the 10 cents per ton which the latter company
had received because of ore shipped by complainant from
Cartersville and other southern points to Dayton, Tennessee, under
color and by reason of the 70-cent rate. Upon appeal, the Supreme
Court of Tennessee reversed the decree of the Chancery Court, and
held that the 70-cent rate was
Page 239 U. S. 450
the legal rate in force from and after March 5th, 1907, and
that, if it had jurisdiction to determine the case, it would so
decide. For reasons set forth in its opinion, however, it reached
the conclusion that, because of the acts of Congress concerning the
Interstate Commerce Commission, there was no jurisdiction to
entertain the original bill, and that it and the cross-bill must be
dismissed. It is to reverse this decision that the writ of error in
this case was sued out.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee is, of course, the ultimate judge
of the extent of its jurisdiction, and unless a denial of federal
rights is involved, its decision upon that subject is final and
conclusive. From what we have already said, however, it is apparent
that the real federal question involved in this controversy
concerns the right of the Southern Railway to enforce the 70-cent
rate on the shipments of iron ore from Cartersville and other
points in Georgia to Dayton, Tennessee. Upon this point, the
supreme court reached the conclusion that the 70-cent rate was the
only legal rate in force at the time of the shipments; that it was
filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission on February 2, 1907,
to take effect on March 5, 1907; that it was thus filed by the
Nashville, Chattanooga, & St. Louis Railway Company and duly
received and stamped by the Southern Railway as the connecting
carrier, and that the last-named railroad concurred in the tariff
by receiving freight under that schedule and making settlements
under it. This made the rate a joint one, in accordance with the
rulings of the Interstate Commerce Commission at that time, and
under the Interstate Commerce Act, there could be no departure from
this published rate.
Our examination of the record,
Kansas City Southern Ry. v.
Albers, 223 U. S. 573,
satisfies us that, upon this question of the legal effect of the
filed tariffs and the consequent establishment of the 70-cent rate
the Supreme
Page 239 U. S. 451
Court of Tennessee was clearly right. It appears that the
70-cent rate was duly filed by the Nashville, Chattanooga, &
St. Louis Railway Company with the Interstate Commerce Commission;
that it became effective upon March 5th, 1907; that the connecting
carrier, the Southern Railway, received the tariff and stamped and
filed it, and acted upon it, insisting that 70 cents was the legal
rate, although permitting the Dayton Company to make payments at
the rate of 60 cents per ton. Such payments could not have the
effect to modify the right of the parties to insist upon the legal
rate as filed and published. True, the Southern Railway did not
formally inform the initial carrier of its acceptance of this
tariff; nor was this necessary.
United States v. N.Y. Central
R. Co., 212 U. S. 509.
This practice of acceptance without formal notice was recognized by
the Interstate Commerce Commission, as appears by its orders set
out in the record, until the order of the Commission in May, 1907,
requiring acceptance to be specifically given and certified to the
Commission, thus avoiding the confusion and misunderstandings which
arose under the former practice.
That it is essential to the maintenance of uniform rates and the
avoidance of rebates and preferential treatment that the tariff
rates filed with the Commission according to the interstate
commerce act, while in force, shall be the only rates which the
carrier may lawfully receive or the shipper properly pay is too
thoroughly settled by the former decisions of this Court to require
further discussion. The principle is stated and many previous cases
in this Court cited in a case decided at the last term --
Louis. & Nash. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S.
94,
237 U. S.
97-98.
It follows that the Supreme Court of Tennessee did not err,
insofar as any federal right is involved, in the judgment rendered
dismissing the bill.
Affirmed.