Ace Lines, Inc. v. United States

• Decision Date: 12 April 1965
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 5-1467.
• Citation: 239 F. Supp. 804
• Parties: ACE LINES, INC., Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa

239 F. Supp. 804

ACE LINES, INC., Plaintiff, v. The UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants.

Civ. No. 5-1467.

United States District Court S. D. Iowa, Central Division.

April 12, 1965.

Ross H. Sidney, Des Moines, Iowa, for plaintiff.

William H. Orrick, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John H. D. Wigger, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Donald A. Wine, U. S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, for the United States.

Robert W. Ginnane, Gen. Counsel, Thomas H. Ploss, Atty., I. C. C., Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge, and STEPHENSON and HANSON, District Judges.

HANSON, Distict Judge.

This is an action by the plaintiff for review of a ruling of the Interstate Commerce Commission and to enjoin a cease and desist order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

On August 15, 1961, the Commission instituted an investigation into the practice of Ace Lines, Inc., of Des Moines, petitioner in this case, to determine whether said respondent was operating beyond the scope of its certificates of public convenience and necessity. The examiner found that the transportation of binder and baler twine was not authorized by the commodity description "farm machinery and parts thereof" in the Ace Lines certificate and the examiner also found that the transportation of rake teeth and harrow teeth separate from shipments of farm machinery upon which the teeth are to be utilized was not allowed by the commodity description "farm machinery and parts thereof." The examiner recommended that Ace Lines be ordered to cease and desist from these practices. These findings were excepted to by Ace Lines, but the Commission found that the activities were in violation of Ace Lines' certificates and a cease and desist order was entered to be effective December 20, 1963. This review was then taken by Ace Lines.

The Commission held that binder and bailer twine do not constitute "parts" of farm machinery and, therefore, were never to be transported under the description "farm machinery and parts thereof."

The Commission recognized that a somewhat different question was presented with respect to the rake and harrow teeth. The Commission found that the rake teeth and harrow teeth were machinery parts but that these products could not be transported alone, but rather could be transported only with the machinery itself.

In the stipulation, the parties agreed that twine, rake teeth, and harrow teeth are not farm machinery but are parts or items necessary to the proper functioning of machinery. The examiner treated this as a stipulation of fact but held it immaterial. The Commission held the stipulation to be one of law which they were not obliged to accept. It is not necessary to decide whether the stipulation is one of fact or law or mixed fact and law. The stipulation is not conclusive. It says that "* * * twine * * are parts or items necessary to the proper functioning of machinery." The examiner was not clearly erroneous when he determined the twine was not "parts" of...