Judicial Code, 24, give jurisdiction to the district courts "of
all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating
commerce."
Held that a suit so arises where the carrier
sues the consignee of an interstate shipment of livestock to
collect a charge for disinfecting the cars, alleged to be due under
tariffs approved and published as required by the Interstate
Commerce Act, and where the consignee, admitting the interstate
character of the shipment and propriety of the charges under the
act, defends on the ground that the carrier, by its acts, is
estopped from holding him responsible.
Reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Did the district court rightly decide that it had no
jurisdiction is the only question presented.
Plaintiff in error sued to recover one hundred and forty-five
dollars claimed to be due under tariffs approved and published as
required by Interstate Commerce Act, for disinfecting fifty-eight
cars containing livestock shipped
Page 247 U. S. 202
from points outside the state and delivered to defendant, the
consignee at New Orleans, Louisiana. It alleged presentation of
bills covering each shipment and payment by defendant of all
charges except those for disinfecting -- two dollars and fifty
cents per car.
Answering, defendant admitted the shipments were interstate;
that he paid all lawful charges, except those sued for, and that
these had been properly prescribed under and pursuant to the
Interstate Commerce Act. But he denied liability for these reasons:
as the carrier well knew, or should have known, he had long been
engaged in the business of factor or commission merchant; in due
course, while acting as representative for their owners and
consignors he received the livestock, sold them immediately upon
arrival, deducted expenses, etc., and remitted balance of proceeds
to his principals; when the cars arrived, he paid all charges
actually demanded; he was not then advised and remained unaware
that any others were contemplated until such balance had been
remitted. Having led him to believe the amount asked and paid
before he remitted entire net proceeds constituted full settlement,
the carrier is now estopped from demanding more of him.
The trial court, upon its own initiative, dismissed the action
for want of jurisdiction.
Section 24 of the Judicial Code provides that, regardless of
amount involved, district courts shall have original jurisdiction
"of all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating
commerce." The Interstate Commerce Act requires carrier to collect
and consignee to pay all lawful charges duly prescribed by the
tariff in respect of every shipment. Their duty and obligation grow
out of and depend upon that act.
In support of the trial court, it is said there is no
jurisdiction unless the suit in part, at least, arises out of a
controversy in regard to operation or effect of the act of
Congress. Here, there is no dispute as to legality of rate
Page 247 U. S. 203
or its application to the shipments, and consignee's liability
was fully discharged upon payment by him of amount demanded at time
of delivery and surrender of the carrier's lien.
"Cases arising under the laws of the United States are such as
grow out of the legislation of Congress."
Tennessee v.
Davis, 100 U. S. 257,
100 U. S.
264.
"Whether a party claims a right under the Constitution or laws
of the United States is to be ascertained by the legal construction
of its own allegations."
New Jersey Central R. Co. v. Mills, 113 U.
S. 249,
113 U. S. 257.
"If the plaintiff really makes a substantial claim under an act of
Congress, there is jurisdiction whether the claim ultimately be
held good or bad."
The Fair v. Kohler Die Co.,
228 U. S. 22,
228 U. S. 25. A
suit arises under an act of Congress when
"it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy
respecting the validity, construction, or effect of such a law upon
the determination of which the result depends."
Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561,
225 U. S. 569.
As to interstate shipments,
"there can be no question that, since the decision in the
Croninger case [
226 U.S.
491], the parties are held to the responsibilities imposed by
the federal law to the exclusion of all other rules of
obligation."
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v.
Starbird, 243 U. S. 592,
243 U. S. 595;
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S.
94,
237 U. S.
97.
The railroad company set up a claim based upon provisions of a
tariff duly filed, published, and approved as required by
Interstate Commerce Act; result of the action necessarily depended
upon construction and effect of that act.
We think the district court had jurisdiction. Its judgment is
accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded for further
proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed.