Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

essary establish rates to points not in the original complaint.73 The filing by defendant carriers of an application for relief from the operation of section 4 does not preclude a determination by the Commission of a complaint under section 3.74 However, the normal course under the advance in rates suspension clause would be that, while the rates protested against might be condemned, the rates against which there was no protest would be allowed to go into effect. In regular course of business the complaint must be presented in a verified petition; and the complainant will be bound by the form of his complaint.76 A carrier who avers in defense substantial dissimilarity in circumstances and conditions as justification, is concluded by its pleading, and must affirmatively show that the circumstances and conditions are in fact substantially dissimilar; but upon an application for relief under section 4 the carrier is not limited by such a rule of evidence, and may present to the Commission every material reason for an order in its favor." The theory of the Commission is that a complaint is not to be regarded strictly as an action at law, but rather as an appeal against illegal action.78

§ 1075. Raising the question of jurisdiction.

The Commission being an administrative body, need not first determine whether the subject-matter of a complaint is within its jurisdiction before it considers the merits of a controversy; but affirmative relief may not be granted in any case unless jurisdiction over the subjectmatter is definitely ascertained. Without determining the question of jurisdiction, therefore, it may analyze the facts presented, and if sufficient to grant relief, dismiss the

73 Florida Fruit & Vegetable Ass'n v. Atlantic C. L. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 552.

74 Mayor & Council of Boston v. A. C. L. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 50.

75 In re Advances on Fruits and Vegetables, 24 I. C. C. 164.

76 Re Southern Pac. R. R., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 16, 1 I. C. C. 6.

77 Trammell v. Clyde Steamship Co., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 120, 5 I. C. C. 324.

78 New Pittsburg Coal Co. v. H. V. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 121.

complaint." And where a broad question is intended to be raised, the Commission has ruled that it should be in some comprehensive proceeding to which the railroads responsible for the situation can be made parties.80 And in general the Commission will as a matter of practice decline to give a preliminary hearing upon a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.81 Jurisdiction is a fundamental fact which can be raised at any stage of the proceedings before determination of the issues; and it follows from the character of this defense that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by stipulation of parties.82

§ 1076. Individual rate during general inquiry.

In accordance with these general principles, the Commission will not think it desirable to undertake to pass upon an individual rate during general inquiry.83 In such a general inquiry the Commission may deal with rates notwithstanding all parties affected are not in; but no order can be addressed to a carrier omitted as a defendant.84 At the conclusion of such a general inquiry very often only a general readjustment will be outlined and the particular complaints by which it was occasioned dismissed without prejudice.85 While the law casts upon the respondents the burden of showing that the increased rates are reasonable, the parties at whose instance suspensions are ordered should present to the Commission all facts which, in their opinion, tend to show that the increases should be allowed.86 Where a broad question is intended to be raised, it should be in some comprehensive

79 Mattison v. Penn. Co., 23 I. C. C. 233.

80 In re Advances in Class Rates, 25 I. C. C. 268.

81 Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Mo. P. R. R., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 321, 1 I. C. C. 156.

82 La Salle B. C. R. R. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 13 I. C. C. 610.

83 Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. Vandalia R. R., 15 I. C. C. 175. 84 Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 15 I. C. C. 73.

85 Oklahoma v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 14 I. C. C. 147.

86 Commodity Rates between Missouri River Points, 28 I. C. C. 265.

proceeding to which the railroads responsible for the situation can be made parties.

§ 1077. Statement of the wrong.

It is fundamental that the complaint shall state the facts with such clearness that the Commission may apprehend the point in issue, and defendant may be adequately advised of the thing which it is called upon to answer and defend.87 Although no form for drafting the complaint is particularly described, the thing found fault with must definitely appear.88 And to make out a case for relief under the Act, all the circumstances bearing on the questions involved should be presented.89 Thus a mere allegation that the rates charged violate certain sections of the Act, unaccompanied by any description of the character of the discrimination, nor any prayer for their correction, is not sufficient to try the question of discrimination.90 A complainant should seasonably state his claim for damages with sufficient definiteness to advise the Commission and the carrier of the nature of the claim.91 But whether a discrimination shall be removed is not measured by its amount, whether large or small, but by whether it is undue.92 As a matter of practice different complaints all on the same basis should be combined in one complaint.93 And, while a general description would be sufficient in a complaint involving rates to numerous destinations which have been attacked, such general language would be held insufficient in a case where damages are claimed on account of some specific transactions in the past.94

87 Augusta & Savannah Steamboat Co. v. O. S. S. Co. of Savannah, 26 I. C. C. 380.

88 Florida Fruit & Vegetable Ass'n v. Atlantic C. L. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 552.

89 Quammen & Austad Lumber Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 19 I. C. C.

110.

90 United States Leather Co. v. S. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 323.

91 Mountain Ice Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R., 21 I. C. C. 45.

92 Fort Dodge Commercial Club v. I. C. C., 16 I. C. C. 572.

93 Hayden & W. Lumber Co. v. Gulf & S. I. R. R., 14 I. C. C. 540. 94 Mountain Ice Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R., 21 I. C. C. 45.

§ 1078. Sufficiency of the complaint.

97

96

While the Commission is extremely liberal in construing pleadings, the Act necessarily implies that carriers shall be notified of the complaint which they are required to answer; and although no particular form is insisted upon, there must be a statement of the thing which is claimed to be wrong sufficiently plain to put the carrier upon its defense. It is not a matter of form, but of substance; even a letter setting forth sufficiently the nature of claim is enough to take rank as a complaint. And any general allegations in regard to a shipment showing the point of origin and destination, the consignor and consignee and the commodity and the billing are sufficient to constitute a filing of a complaint. There are no technicalities insisted upon in drawing complaints; 98 it is simply necessary to tell a straight-forward story; for the Commission never looks to the niceties of pleading. The mere fact that the word "overcharge" is used instead of "unreasonable exaction" will not be permitted to interfere with a trial of the substantial issue presented.99 As was said in one case, it was sufficient if the complaint states enough to put in issue a charge of undue prejudice.' But a complaint against all rates between two points is not sufficient; there must be specific attack upon specific rates. However, although a complaint is apparently indefinite, if it can be made definite at the hearing that will be enough.3 And in one proceeding an inference was drawn that the intention was to attack rates in both directions, though the complaint did not so specify.

[blocks in formation]

A complaint showing

99 Clinton Refining Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 364.

1 Union Tanning Co. v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C. 112.

2 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry., 19 I. C. C. 162.

3 Oskosh Logging Tool Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 109. 4 Beall v. W. A. & M. V. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 406.

date and weight of shipment, with allegation of unreasonableness of rate charged the complainant, is sufficient." But a complaint against a rate "to Boston, New York and Eastern points" will only cover Boston and New York-"Eastern points" is too indefinite."

§ 1079. Answers in defense.

An answer which sets up a justification must clearly advise complainants of the facts and circumstances relied on as constituting such justification. Under the rules of practice issued by the Commission, a replication to an answer is not required or allowed. Matter which is not expressly in issue by the pleadings or necessarily involved in issues presented in a strictly inter partes case instituted by complaint before the Commission cannot be authoritatively determined by it. But technical defenses have no place before the Commission, and will not be permitted to defeat the broad principles of the Act.10 It should be noted that section 13 requires that every carrier complained of shall be supplied with a copy of complaint, and given an opportunity to answer. 11 Oftentimes upon an examination of complaints, the Commission will request a conference between carriers and shippers to see if under its guidance arrangements satisfactory to all concerned may not be worked out.12

§ 1080. Amendment to complaint.

The Interstate Commerce Commission is liberal in allowing amendments to complaints, but will not allow

Riverside Mills v. G. R. R., 20

I. C. C. 423.

6 Kiser Co. v. Central of Ga. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 430.

"Raworth v. Northern P. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 857, 5 I. C. C. 234. 8 Oregon S. L. Ry. v. Northern P. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 639, 3 I. C. C. 264.

• Commercial Club v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 647.

10 Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 179.

11 Fels & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 23 I. C. C. 483.

12 Potato Shipments in Winter, 26 I. C. C. 681.

« ForrigeFortsett »