Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

That political considerations or personal spite actuated the complainant is not a matter of any importance, if the complaint and answer fairly present a question for the adjudication of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In re Boston & M. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 717, 5 I. C.

C. R. 69.

Kemble was one of a committee which drew up and verified a complaint for the Toledo Produce Exchange. Later he tried to make complaint as an individual, as to the same state of facts. The former adjudication was pleaded against him.-Held, that his complaint as an individual was not barred, the technical doctrine of estoppel of record not being available before the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Toledo Prod. Exch. & E. Kemble v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 492, 569, 3 Inters. Com. R. 830, 5 I. C. C. R. 166.

A complaint filed to get even for a fancied personal grievance does not commend itself to the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Slater v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 32, 243, 2 I. C. C. R. 359.

The Interstate Commerce Commission declines to express opinions on abstract questions, or on questions brought before it on ex parte statements of fact, or on questions of the construction of the law, without any controversy pending before it. In re Order of Railway Conductors, 1 Inters. Com. R. 18, 1 I. C. C. R. 8.

Where a complaint made to the Interstate Commerce Commission offers no reasonable ground for investigation, it will not be filed.- La Crosse M. & J.'s Un. v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 9, 1 I. C. C. R. 629.

Where persons patronizing a railroad at a particular point where no station facilities are provided have not sufficient interest in the matter to appear before the Public Service Commission, upon a hearing as to such facilities, in support of the desired improvement, nor even to manifest such interest by communications to the Commission, the improvement should not be ordered.- Rockland Co. Citizens v. N. J. & N. Y. R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission for the Second District, April 16, 1908.

[15] Form of commission's findings and report of investigations. Prima facie weight of findings of fact,- see ante, § 23, note [2].

The function of the Interstate Commerce Commision being both quasijudicial and administrative in its nature, its procedure should be in substantial conformity to that of a court, or of a referee or master in chancery charged with the duty of finding the facts and applying the law thereto. Therefore the Commission must make reports or decisions in writing as to matters investigated by it, and such reports must include the findings of fact on which the decision of the Commission was based,

and such findings of fact are to be given weight as prima facie evidence, in any judicial proceeding thereafter had on such report. The Commission being composed of men of ability and experience, selected with regard to their special qualifica ions for this work, and giving their entire energies to the questions arising under the Act, its findings and opinions are entitled to great weight. But in order that their findings and decisions may have the force intended, and that judicial procedure thereon shall be in due form, it is necessary that such report shall show what the issues in the case are, and what facts it finds in regard to such issues. It is not sufficient for the report to consist of mere conclusions as to law or fact. It should suitably refer to and set forth the evidence as to contested points, and show the decision of the Commission upon such disputed facts; or if the evidence in regard to any fact is undisputed, it should be so stated by the Commission.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

[16] Practice and procedure on hearings.

Commission not bound by technical rules of procedure,- see ante, § 20, note [1].

Principles governing allowance of amendments,- see ante, § 20, note [1].

Upon an investigation after complaint as to a proposed change in classification, the Interstate Commerce Commission has the power, in the public interest, disembarrassed by any supposed admissions contained in the statement of the complaint, to consider the whole subject and the operation of the new classification in the entire territory, as also how far its going into effect would be just and reasonable, or would create preferences or engender discriminations.- Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 206 U. S. 142, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 648, affg. s. c. 146 Fed. 559.

The burden of proof with regard to the exaction of unreasonable rates is on the complainant.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 120 Fed. 934.

Where, in a case on trial before it, the Interstate Commerce Commission ought to receive and take into account evidence of certain facts, its refusal to do so is an error of law, as is also its failure to dispose of an issue of fact raised before it.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

It is the duty of those who institute formal proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission to prosecute their complaints with reasonable diligence, and when a case has been formally assigned for a hearing on a day certain the parties must appear and present such evidence as they may wish to offer in support of their contentions, or, in advance of the date set, make request for a postponement of the hearing

on stated grounds showing good and sufficient cause for delay.- Producers' Pipe Line Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. P. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 215. Each complaint must be considered and decided on its own peculiar facts. Each traffic situation presents points of difference, and one case can seldom be an exact precedent for another.- Danville v. So. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 409.

Where the Interstate Commerce Commission has decided the proper relation of certain freight rates, which relation determines where and how business shall be done, the decision, in the absence of some showing that new conditions have intervened or that the effects of the original holding have been other than were anticipated, will be controlling.— Board of R. R. Comrs. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 304.

The taking of proof in an investigation as to a whole system of rates, involving numerous commodities, may be confined to a single article, and the order entered only as to that, the Commission making known its opinion that the same principles should govern rate-making as to the other commodities.-Violations of Act to Regulate Commerce by St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 290.

A decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals upon similar facts but as to different parties, will not technically be given the effect of a former adjudication, but it ought to be and is considered conclusive on the Interstate Commerce Commission as to the matters involved and decided. Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

[ocr errors]

If the defendant carrier does not answer a complaint, the Interstate Commerce Commission will take such proof of the facts as it deems proper, and then make such an order as the circumstances of the case may require.-Tecumseh Celery Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & M. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 44, 318, 5 I. C. C. R. 663.

Where claim for reparation is made in a complaint of unreasonable rates, the burden is on the complainant to show the facts connected with the claim and establish the same; and when these facts have not been sufficiently brought out to enable the Commission to justly determine what reparation is due the complainant, it will decline to award reparation.- Perry v. Florida C. & P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 416, 740, 5 I. C. C. R. 97.

Where the verified answers of the carriers deny the allegations of the complaint and such denials are fortified by the testimony of witnesses, but the complainant does not appear at the hearing, though duly notified thereof, and offers no proof in support of the information and belief on which his allegations were based, the complaint must be dismissed.- Rice v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 724, 4 Inters. Com. R. 321, 5 I. C. C. R. 660.

Where the charges complained of are common to a considerable area of country and to numerous towns of equal or greater distance from the common market, and are maintained by all the roads whose lines extend into that territory, the Commission is reluctant to interfere with such a system of rates, particularly where many interests and localities affected are not represented in the proceeding.- Lincoln Creamery Co. v. U. Pac. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 641, 794, 5 I. C. C. R. 156.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will not order carriers not parties to a proceeding to raise their rates, nor make such an order without giving the communities most directly affected a chance to be heard.Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 248, 4 I. C. C. R. 195.

case.

The carriers offered to waive objections to depositions which had been taken without notice, if the complainant would let all the evidence taken in a prior proceeding as to the situation be considered as evidence in this Complainant agreed to this, but later tried to rescind the agreement, even though he still had the right to put in any further evidence he desired. Held, that the original agreement should govern the consideration of the case.- - Toledo Prod. Exch. & E. Kemble v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 492, 569, 3 Inters. Com. R. 830, 5 I. C. C. R. 166.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will, on a new or different complaint in a proceeding, correct its former decision, if that is shown to be erroneous.- - In re Petition of Prod. Exch. of Toledo, 2 Inters. Com. R. 412, 2 I. C. C. R. 588.

A case will not be decided on a theory not advanced in the complaint nor on the taking of testimony.- Martin v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 32, 2 I. C. C. R. 25.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will not determine the relative reasonableness of rates over a large extent of territory, simply from the face of the tariffs, without proofs.- Spartansburg Board of Trade v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 15, 193, 2 I. C. C. R. 304.

The Interstate Commerce Commission may not award the attorney's fee which the Interstate Commerce Act authorizes a court to award.— Council v. Western & A. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 292, 355, 638, 1 I. C. C. R. 339.

[17] Decisions and orders by commission.

Dismissal of complaint with right to rehearing,- see ante, § 22, note [1].

Suspension of orders by Commission,- see ante, § 23, note [4].
Presumption of validity of orders,- see ante, § 23, note [1].
Judicial restraint of orders, see ante, § 23, notes [10]-[19].

Federal interference with orders of state commissions,—see ante, § 23,

notes [20]-[28].

Judicial enforcement of orders,- see post, § 57, notes. Effect of receivership on enforcement of orders of Commission,— see post, § 57, note [15].

The Iowa Act creating a board of railroad commissioners with powers to fix reasonable charges on railroads, requires said board to make a schedule of maximum rates and empowers such board to investigate complaints as to rates and thereupon to make a decision as to rates to be charged thereafter. Held, that the board could make a full schedule in any case where a complaint had been made and investigated.- Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Dey, 38 Fed. 656.

If the Interstate Commerce Commission finds an arbitrary unlawful, it may order the carrier not to charge the same during a period of two years, even though the carrier had ceased charging the arbitrary before the filing of the complaint.-Blackwell M. & E. Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 25.

Where the evidence shows the abuses but is not sufficient to warrant a specific order respecting an exact adjustment of rates, the Interstate Commerce Commission will announce the rules of rate-making to be followed, make definite suggestions, and hold the case open pending readjustment by the carrier.- Menasha W. W. Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 666.

Where the findings show a basis for an adjustment between the parties, the Interstate Commerce Commission will, in a proper instance leave the case open pending such amicable settlement.- Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 475.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will, in a proper case, decide as to the lawfulness of practices complained of, and leave the question of damages from the illegal practices open to further hearing in the same proceeding. Gallogly v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 1.

In a proper case, after due investigation of a complaint against one or more carriers, the Interstate Commerce Commission will make an administrative order directed to all carriers subject to its jurisdiction.American Warehousemen's Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 556.

The Interstate Commerce Commission may decide a case as to what preventive relief is proper, but retain and continue the case as to the question of what reparation ought to be awarded to the complainants.Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

If the Interstate Commerce Commission finds that certain schedules of rates are inequitable, it may permit the carrier to readjust them and hold back its order until after such readjustment.- Paine Bros. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 218.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »