Henry Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company

Decision Date23 February 1915
Docket NumberNo. 434,434
Citation35 S.Ct. 328,236 U.S. 412,59 L.Ed. 644
PartiesHENRY E. MEEKER, Surviving Partner of the Firm of Meeker & Company, Petitioner, v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Syllabus from pages 412-414 intentionally omitted] Messrs. John A. Garver and William A. Glasgow, Jr., for petitioner.

Messrs. John G. Johnson, Frank H. Platt, George W. Field, and Edgar H. Boles for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 414-417 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Joseph W. Folk and Charles W. Needham for the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action under § 16 of the act to regulate commerce1 to recover from the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company damages alleged to have been sustained by a shipper and awarded by the Interstate Commerce Commission by reason of the company's violation of the prohibition in §§ 1 and 2 of that act against unreasonable rates and unjust discrimination. The plaintiff prevailed in the district court, but the circuit court of appeals reversed the judgment (211 Fed. 785), and a writ of certiorari granted under § 262 of the Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1162, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1239] brings the case here (234 U. S. 749, 58 L. ed. 1576, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 674).

The plaintiff was the surviving member of Meeker & Company, a copartnership, and sued in that capacity. This firm was engaged in the anthracite coal trade in New York city, and was accustomed to purchase its coal at collieries in Pennsylvania, and to ship it over the defendant's railroad to tidewater at Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and thence by vessel to New York. Two distinct claims were involved. The first covered shipments from November 1, 1900, to August 1, 1901, and was grounded upon a charge that the railroad company had unjustly and injuriously discriminated against Meeker & Company by giving (on August 1, 1901) to another and extensive shipper of anthracite between the same points an indirect but substantial rebate upon all shipments during the same period, and that by reason of this rebate the other shipper had obtained a contemporaneous service in all respects like that rendered for Meeker & Company at a less rate than was exacted from the latter. The second covered shipments from August 1, 1901, to July 17, 1907, and was based upon the charge that the established rate paid by Meeker & Company during that period was excessive and unreasonable.

On July 17, 1907, a complaint embodying both claims was presented to the Interstate Commerce Commission under §§ 9 and 13 of the act, and after a full hearing in which the railroad company was an active participant, the Commission made a written report (21 Inters. Com. Rep. 129) finding that the charge of unjust discrimination was sustained by the evidence, condemning as excessive and unreasonable the rate which was in effect from August 1, 1901, to the date of the report, naming what was deemed a maximum reasonable rate, holding that the claimant was entitled to an award of reparation upon both claims, and directing that further proceedings he had to determine the amount to be awarded. Under § 15 of the act an order was then made requiring the railroad company, within a time named, to cease giving effect to the prior rate found unreasonable, and to establish a new rate not exceeding that found reasonable.

Thereafter a further hearing was had at which additional evidence bearing upon the question of reparation was presented, and, on May 7, 1912, the Commission made a supplemental report, saying (23 Inters. Com. Rep. 480):

'In our original report we found that the rates charged complainant for the transportation of anthracite coal from the Wyoming coal region in Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, during the period from November 1, 1900, to August 1, 1901, were unjustly discriminatory in violation of § 2 of the act, to the extent that they exceeded the rates contemporaneously charged the Lehigh Valley Coal Company under the contract then in effect between that company and defendant; and we further found that the rates in effect from August 1, 1901, to July 17, 1907, were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded rates of $1.40 per gross ton on prepared sizes, $1.30 on pea, and $1.15 on buckwheat.

'On basis of our conclusions in the former report, and upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing upon the question of reparation, we now find that during the period from November 1, 1900, to August 1, 1901, complainant shipped from the Wyoming coal region of Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, 55,257.75 tons of coal of prepared sizes, 16,689.76 tons of pea coal, 11,448.93 tons of buckwheat coal, and 4,926.77 tons of rice coal, and paid charges thereon, amounting to $129,989.18, at the rates found to have been unjustly discriminatory; that complainant has been damaged to the extent of the difference between the amount which he did pay and $118,979.85, the amount which he would have paid had he been given the benefit of the rates applied by defendant to similar* shipments of the Lehigh Valley Coal Company; and that he is, therefore, entitled to an award of reparation in the sum of $11,009.33; with interest thereon from August 1, 1901. We find further that from August 1, 1901, to July 17, 1907, complainant shipped from the Wyoming coal region in Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, 246,870.15 tons of coal of prepared sizes, 106,051.09 tons of pea coal, and 87,250 tons of buckwheat coal, and paid charges thereon amounting to $685,375.27, at the rates found to have been unreasonable; that complainant has been damaged to the extent of the difference between the amount which he did pay $626,945.62, the amount which he would have paid at the rates found reasonable, less $193.20 deducted by stipulation of all parties on account of certain claims already paid; and that he is, therefore, entitled to an additional award of reparation in the sum of $58,236.45, with interest, amounting to $27,750.64, on the individual charges comprising said sum from the dates of payment thereof to September 1, 1911, together with interest on said sum of $58,236.45 from September 1, 1911.

* * * * *

'The exhibits showing details respecting the shipments upon which reparation is asked are too extensive to be set forth in this report. But inasmuch as the accuracy of the figures in said exhibits respecting the shipments made, freight charges paid, and reparation due, is conceded of record by defendant, we deem it unnecessary to make detailed findings respecting the numerous shipments involved.'

Thereupon the Commission made and entered of record an order for reparation which, with a slight amendment made June 15, 1912, was as follows:

'This case being at issue upon complaint and answers on file, and having been duly heard and submitted by the parties, and full investigation of the matters and* things involved having been had, and the Commission having, on the date hereof, made and filed a supplemental report containing its findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which said report is hereby referred to and made a part hereof:

'It is ordered, that defendant Lehigh Valley Railroad Company be and it is hereby authorized and required to pay unto complainant, Henry E. Meeker, surviving partner of Henry E. Meeker and Caroline H. Meeker, copartners, trading as Meeker & Company, on or before the 1st day of Agugust, 1912, the sum of $11,009.33, with interest thereon, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, from the 1st day of August, 1901, as reparation for unjustly discriminatory rates charged for the transportation of anthracite coal from the Wyoming coal region in Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, which rates so charged have been found by this Commission to have been unjustly discriminatory, as more fully and at large appears in and by said report of the Commission.

'It is further ordered, that defendant Lehigh Valley Railroad Company be and it is hereby authorized and required to pay unto complainant, Henry E. Meeker, surviving partner of Henry E. Meeker and Caroline H. Meeker, copartners, trading as Meeker & Company, on or before the 1st day of August, 1912, the sum of $58,236.45, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, amounting to $27,750.64, upon the various individual charges comprising said sum from the dates of payment thereof to September 1, 1911, as itemized in complainant's Exhibit 2, together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on said sum of $58,236.45, from September 1, 1911, as reparation for unreasonable rates charged for the transportation of various shipments of anthracite coal from the Wyoming coal region in Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy, New Jersey, which rates so charged have been found by this Commission to have been unreasonable, as more fully and at large appears in and by said report of the Commission.'

Although duly served with a copy of this order, the railroad company refused to comply with it; and, on September 3, 1912, after the time allotted for compliance had expired, the plaintiff, conformably to § 16 of the act, filed in the district court his petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claimed damages and the reports and orders of the Commission, and praying judgment against the railroad company for the amounts claimed and awarded and for interest and costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee. The defendant answered denying the claims set forth in the petition, and asserting that they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, that the Commission was without jurisdiction 'to make the findings and order of reparation' relied upon, and that 'there was before the Commission no substantial evidence to sustain said findings and said order.' A trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff assessing the damages at $109,280.17, the total amount awarded by the Commission with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
249 cases
  • State v. Grimmett
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Julio 1920
    ...25 Conn. 195; State v. Beach, 147 Ind. 74, 46 N.E. 145, 36 L. R. A. 179; State v. Sheppard, 64 Kan. 451, 67 P. 870; Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, Cas. 1916B, 691, 35 S.Ct. 328, 59 L. ed 644, see, also, Rose's U. S. Notes; State v. Converse, 40 Utah 72, 119 P. 1030; Luria v. ......
  • Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n v. Powhatan Energy Fund, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 24 Septiembre 2018
    ...redressing a private injury, even though the wrongful act be a public offense, and punishable as such.Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, 423, 35 S.Ct. 328, 59 L.Ed. 644 (1915) (emphasis added). Here, the Commission ordered disgorgement of profits to redress the MLSA payments it......
  • Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Day
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 29 Junio 1959
    ...as to assure that it did not 'abridge the right of trial by jury, or take away any of its incidents.' Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, 430, 35 S.Ct. 328, 335, 59 L.Ed. 644. It is hard for me to believe that Congress enacted the Railway Labor Act on the assumption that a railroa......
  • State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 4 Diciembre 1925
    ... ... 721 STATE ex rel. BURR et al., State Railroad Commissioners v. JACKSONVILLE TERMINAL CO ... directed to the Jacksonville Terminal Company ... Peremptory ... writ denied ... 171, 44 S.Ct. 280, 68 L.Ed. 623; ... Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U.S. 430, 35 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws. Second Edition
    • 8 Diciembre 2018
    ...Cir.), 157 Medical Ctr. at Elizabeth Place v. Atrium Health Sys., 817 F.3d 934 (6th Cir. 2016), 157 Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R.R., 236 U.S. 412 (1915), 128 In re Mercedes Benz Antitrust Litig., 2006 WL 2129100 (D.N.J. 2006), 64 Merck-Medco Managed Care v. Rite Aid Corp., 1999 WL 691840......
  • SECURITIES FRAUD
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 Julio 2021
    .... . governs punitive relief sought by the SEC”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 413. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 414. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, 423 (1915). But see SEC v. Graham, 823 F.3d 1357, 1360–61 (11th Cir. 2016) (f‌inding that injunctions are not a penalty under the statute b......
  • Securities Fraud
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...(1997). 354. See SEC v. Wyly, 788 F. Supp. 2d 92, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). 355. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 356. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, 423 (1915). But see SEC v. Graham, 823 F.3d 1357, 1360–61 (11th Cir. 2016) (f‌inding injunctions are not a penalty under the statute because “a ......
  • Securities Fraud
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    .... . governs punitive relief sought by the SEC”); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 403. 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 404. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R.R. Co., 236 U.S. 412, 423 (1915). But see SEC v. Graham, 823 F.3d 1357, 1360–61 (11th Cir. 2016) (f‌inding that injunctions are not a penalty under the statute b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT