1. The Interstate Commerce Commission has power, after full
inquiry, to establish intrastate rates on commodities where the
maintenance of such rates on a lower basis than those found
reasonable would result in unjust discrimination against, and undue
prejudice to persons and localities in, interstate commerce. P.
279 U. S.
230.
2. The Act of Congress requiring the consideration of
applications for interlocutory injunctions in certain cases to be
made by three judges and allowing an appeal to this Court
(Jud.Code, § 266, as amended), has in no way modified the well
established doctrine that such applications are addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court and that an order granting or
denying such an injunction will not be disturbed by an appellate
court unless the discretion was improvidently exercised. P.
279 U. S.
230.
Affirmed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court denying an
application for a preliminary injunction to set aside orders of the
Interstate Commerce Commission establishing intrastate rates on
fertilizers and fertilizing material in the Alabama.
Page 279 U. S. 230
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought by appellants to set aside an order of the
Interstate Commerce Commission establishing intrastate rates on
fertilizers and fertilizing material in Alabama, and to enjoin
numerous railroad companies from making such rates effective. The
ground of the Commission's order was that the maintenance of such
intrastate rates on a lower basis than those found reasonable would
result in unjust discrimination against, and undue prejudice to
persons and localities in, interstate commerce.
The order of the Commission is within its general powers,
Houston & Texas Ry. v. United States, 234 U.
S. 342,
234 U. S.
354-355,
234 U. S. 358;
Wisconsin R. Comm'n v. C., B. & Q. R. Co.,
257 U. S. 563,
257 U. S. 585
et seq., and was made after a full inquiry. After a review
of the record, the court below denied an application for a
preliminary injunction. The case is still pending in the court
below for final hearing, and the present appeal relates only to the
interlocutory order.
Congress has manifested its solicitude that the power to grant
writs of injunction against orders of the Interstate Commerce
Commission shall be exercised with special care by requiring the
consideration of applications to be made by three judges and by
giving an appeal directly to this Court both in the case of
interlocutory orders and final decrees.
Virginian Ry. v. United
States, 272 U. S. 658,
272 U. S. 672.
But there is nothing in the legislation to suggest that, in the
exercise of the judicial power in respect of such writs, pertinent
principles of equity, as theretofore understood, are to be
disregarded or modified. It is well
Page 279 U. S. 231
established doctrine that an application for an interlocutory
injunction is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court,
and that an order either granting or denying such an injunction
will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the discretion
was improvidently exercised.
Meccano, Ltd. v. John
Wanamaker, 253 U. S. 136,
253 U. S. 141;
2 High on Injunctions (4th ed.) § 1696.
And see Rice &
Adams Corp. v. Lathrop, 278 U. S. 509. The
rule generally to be applied in the exercise of that discretion is
stated in our recent decision in
Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway,
post, p. 813.
That the doctrine to be followed in reviewing such an order
applies in the case of an order of a court of three judges denying
an interlocutory injunction does not admit of doubt.
United
Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission of West Virginia,
278 U. S. 322,
278 U. S. 326;
Chicago G. W. Ry. v. Kendall, 266 U. S.
94,
266 U. S. 100.
The duty of this Court, therefore, upon an appeal from such an
order, at least generally, is not to decide the merits, but simply
to determine whether the discretion of the court below has been
abused.
See United States v. Balt. & Ohio R. Co.,
225 U. S. 306,
225 U. S. 325.
An examination of the record here reveals no such abuse, and we
must remand the case to the court below for final disposition on
the merits.
Decree affirmed.
