Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

During the conduct of an investigation by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the First District, touching improvements to be made in the property and in the methods of operation of the rapid transit railways of the City of New York, federal receivers were appointed for one of these railroads, the New York City Railway. Application was made to the court by the receivers for instructions as to whether they should appear and participate in the investigation. On September 30, 1907, Judge Lacombe issued a memorandum in which he directed that it was unnecessary for the receivers to appear and that the investigation should proceed against the owners and former operators of the road. [Ed.]

[7] Causes voluntarily submitted.

Even though an investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission was instituted at the request of both parties to the controversy, whose written agreement is set forth in the findings, the Commission does not act in the capacity of arbitrators. In fact as well as form, it conducts a proceeding in accordance with the regulating statute, and its authority or duty is not dependent on or measured by the consent of either party.- In the Matter of Freight Rates, 11 Inters. Com. R. 180.

Parties may voluntarily submit to the Interstate Commerce Commission a given traffic situation, with a request that it determine, not only what rates would be lawful, but also what rates would be fair. In the Matter of Differential Rates, 11 Inters. Com. R. 13.

Where a case is voluntarily submitted by the parties, and the facts deemed material to the question presented are set forth in the papers submitted, and there is no controversy between them as to the facts, the Interstate Commerce Commission will treat the matter as a case upon complaint, answer, and hearing of the parties, and make its order accordingly.- Roth v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 602.

[8] Notice required.

The act creating the N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners clothed it with judicial powers to hear and determine upon notice, questions arising between the people and the corporation.- People v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 58, rev. 40 Hun (N. Y.), 570.

Proceedings by the board of commissioners of the metropolitan sanitary district of New York are in sufficient compliance with "due process of law" if they are upon due notice to the persons whose property may be affected, and give reasonable opportunity for them and their witnesses to be heard.- Metropolitan Board of Health v. Heister, 37 N. Y. 661.

An order made without notice to the railroad of an intent to consider at a specified hearing the issuance of such an order, is void.In re Rutland R. Co., 79 Vt. 53, 64 Atl. 233.

[9] Pleadings.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will permit the amendment of pleadings on the application of either party, on such notice as the Commission may direct.— Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

The practice of the Interstate Commerce Commission is not to proceed with any complaint until it is put in such form that other carriers, localities and dealers may have an opportunity to be heard and such as are necessary have been brought in as parties.-McMillan & Co. v. Western Class. Committee, 3 Inters. Com. R. 282, 4 I. C. C. R. 276.

A complaint and answer are sufficient to indicate the substantial controversy, and a replication to an answer is neither required nor allowed.- Oregon S. L. R. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 572, 639, 3 I. C. C. R. 264.

A complaint which does not allege that the articles were delivered for interstate transportation is insufficient to charge violations of the Interstate Commerce Act, but dismissal should be without prejudice.— White v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 551, 641, 3 I. C. C. R. 281.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will not permit an amendment to a complaint which substitutes for the original cause something new and different. Such a new case should be presented by a new complaint.- Riddle Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 701, 1 I. C. C. R. 372.

An amendment of a complaint will not be granted to bring in matters which could be proved under the original complaint.- Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 649, 2 Inters. Com. R. 187, 799, 2 I. C. C. R. 309.

A complaint to the Board of Railroad Commissioners of Iowa, which, in substance, states merely that the complainant is an association "having in view the shipment of coal," etc., over the railroad complained of; that it applied for room on the railroad's sidetracks for the erection of a coal shed for its use in shipping coal, which application was rejected, is not sufficient for the Board to base an order founded on the theory that the railroad discriminated against the complainant, as there is no showing that the complainants were, or intended to be, shippers, nor that the railroad had ground for the location of the structure nor that any discrimination was practiced.State v. Ch. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 86 Iowa 641, 53 N. W. 323.

[10] Investigations by commission on its own initiative.

If the Interstate Commerce Commission has power, of its own motion, to promulgate general decrees or orders, which thereby become rules of action to common carriers, such exertion of power must be strictly confined to the obvious purposes and directions of the statute, since Congress has not granted it legislative powers.- Texas & P. R. Co. v. Inters. Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 666, revg. s. c. 57 Fed. 948, affg. s. c. 52 Fed. 187.

Where the Interstate Commerce Commission has made, on its own motion, an investigation of a general advance in rates in a given section, and concludes that such advance was not justified although the carriers are not in favorable financial condition, it may state the facts and its conclusions, but refrain from making an order in the premises except upon the duly adjudicated complaint of an aggrieved shipper.- Rates from St. L. to Texas Common Points, 11 Inters. Com. R. 238.

Where the Interstate Commerce Commission has made an investigation on its own motion, it may indicate the abuses but make no order, leaving the remedy to the voluntary action of the carriers, without prejudice to the rights of aggrieved shippers to sue for reparation. -Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

When tariff schedules filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission show advances in rates for which there is no apparent warrant, the Commission may proceed to make an ex parte investigation, permitting the carriers and others to be heard if they so desire.- Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382.

No order can be made upon an ex parte investigation, but the Interstate Commerce Commission may announce its conclusions from such an investigation, and its intent to start proceedings in due form if its recommendations are not carried out by a certain date.- Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382.

The Interstate Commerce Commission may investigate of its own initiative, without a formal complaint or proof of direct damage to a complainant. In re Investigation of Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 496, 3 I. C. C. R. 89.

[11] Where question is already before a court.

Complainants brought an action in a state court for damages for discrimination in furnishing cars. Later they brought a proceeding for reparation, etc., before the Interstate Commerce Commission, because of the same abuses.- Held, that the pendency of the action in a state court did not bar the latter proceeding, though its pendency in a federal court would have had that effect.- Gallogly v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 1.

If the question whether rates paid ought to be refunded in part because excessive, is before a court, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not take cognizance of it.— Bishop v. Duval, 2 Inters. Com. R. 302, 312, 514, 3 I. C. C. R. 128.

[12] Where relief asked is granted before hearing.

That the carrier has ceased charging an arbitrary complained of, does not prevent the Interstate Commerce Commission from investigating and deciding its legality.— Blackwell M. & E. Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 25.

Where the carrier's answer concedes that the charges complained of were erroneous, the complaint will be dismissed upon a showing that reparation has been made.- Spiegle v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 367.

Where the cause of complaint has been removed and the statute substantially complied with, the case will be dismissed, without the entry of an order.- Boyer v. Chesapeake, O. & S. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 55.

An investigation will be discontinued on proof of correction of the rates complained of.- In re Pennsylvania R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 177.

Where the relief asked for by the petition is conceded before the decision, no opinion will be filed.-Pennsylvania Co. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 571, 603, 3 I. C. C. R. 223; Lincoln Board of Trade v. U. Pac. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 702, 2 Inters. Com. R. 101, 3 I. C. C. R. 221.

If the carriers have abandoned the tariffs complained of, the commission will not order the carriers to desist from charging such tariffs, as such an order would be useless.- Rawson v. Newport & M. V. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 311, 448, 626, 3 I. C. C. R. 266.

If before the hearing on a complaint as to excessive rates, the carrier reduces the rates to a figure satisfactory to the complainants, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not pass upon the abstract question of the reasonableness of the rates complained of.- Bishop v. Duval, 2 Inters. Com. R. 302, 312, 514, 3 I. C. C. R. 128.

Where the grievances complained of are obviated before the hearing, the Interstate Commerce Commission will express no opinions upon them. - Lincoln Board of Trade v. U. Pac. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 702, 2 Inters. Com. R. 101, 2 I. C. C. R. 229.

If, after trial but before decision, the defendant concedes the relief asked by the petitioner, and puts it into effect, no order will be made or opinion announced by the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Manufacturers' Union v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 483, 630, 1 I. C. C. R. 227.

[13] Requiring complainant to give a bond.

Where the defendant carrier objects to an order in favor of a complaint on the ground that the latter is financially irresponsible, the Interstate Commerce Commission may require the complainant to give the carrier a suitable bond of indemnity.- Enterprise Transp. Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 373.

[14] Grounds for declining to consider a complaint.

The Interstate Commerce Commission is not the proper forum to which to appeal for the enforcement of a charter, statutory or common law obligation of a railroad, except as the Interstate Commerce Act expressly provides.-Jones v. St. L. & S. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 167. The Interstate Commerce Commission will dismiss without prejudice a complaint which it does not deem of practical consequence.- Harrell v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 31.

The Interstate Commerce Commission may, in its discretion, decline to interfere with rates, etc., mainly local in their bearings, where it is clear that the railroad commission of the state has ample authority in law and perfect control over the situation.- Hastings M. Co. v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 675.

If, under a court decision, the Interstate Commerce Commission believes it cannot make an enforceable order of relief, it will dismiss the complaint.- Bureau of F. & T. v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 235.

A proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission, instituted by aggrieved shippers who complain of an advance in rates made by certain carriers, is not a strictly private or personal suit, into which the party complainant must enter with "clean hands," but is a proceeding for the enforcement of a public duty as well as of an individual or private right.- Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no jurisdiction to determine whether, in making rates, regulations, etc., carriers acted wisely or unwisely, fairly or unfairly, as between themselves. The jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to inquiry whether acts done by the carrier infringe public rights as defined by the Interstate Commerce Act.New York Prod. Exch. v. B. & O. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 612.

It is not a valid objection to a complaint by a live stock exchange that some of its by-laws violate that anti-trust laws and hence it does not come into court with clear hands.- Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

A carrier is not entitled to have a complaint dismissed because of absence of direct damage to the complainant.- Milk Prod. P. Assn. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 92.

« ForrigeFortsett »