• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/149/264.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RAILROAD, 149 U.S. 264 (1893)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RAILROAD, 149 U.S. 264 (1893)

    149 U.S. 264

    INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
    v.
    ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO. et al.

    No. 1,275.

    May 1, 1893

    In Equity. This was a petition by the Interstate Commerce Commission against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company, the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company, the California Central Railway Company, the California Southern Railroad Company, the Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway Company, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company, and the Southern California Railroad Company, to enforce an order requiring these companies to desist from charging a greater rate for a shorter than for a longer haul. In the circuit court the petition was dismissed on the ground that the 'circumstances and conditions' shown were substantially dissimilar, thus justifying the charges made. 50 Fed. Rep. 295. From this order of dismissal the Interstate Commerce Commission appeals. Appeal dismissed.

    The proceeding was brought in the circuit court under the sixteenth section of the interstate commerce law, as amended March 2, 1889, (25 St. p. 855, c. 382,) which gives to the interstate commerce commission a summary remedy to enforce its orders by a petition to the United States circuit court sitting in equity. The statute, as thus amended, provides that--

      'When the subject in dispute shall of the value of two thousand dollars or more, either party to such proceeding before said court may appeal to the supreme court of the United States, under the same regulations now provided by law in respect of security for such appeal; but such appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the court, or the execution of any writ or process thereon, and such court may, in every such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as shall be deemed reasonable.'

    The motion to dismiss the appeal was based upon the ground that this provision was repealed, in so far as it provides for a direct appeal to the supreme court, by the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, (26 St. p. 826, c. 517,) and that the appeal should have been taken to the circuit court of appeals, as the case did not belong to any of the classes in which that act allows appeals to the supreme court direct. [149 U.S. 264, 265]   Geo. R. Peck, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for the motion.

    Wm. A. Day, opposed.

    Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.

    The motion to dismiss is granted. McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U.S. 47 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Hubbard v. Soby, 146 U.S. 56 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13; Railway Co. v. Osborne, 146 U.S. 354 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281.

    Appeal dismissed.

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw