American Express Company v. United States No 405 National Express Company v. United States No 406 United States Express Company v. United States No 407 Wells, Fargo Company v. United States No 408 Adams Express Company v. United States No 409
| Decision Date | 23 February 1909 |
| Docket Number | 408,407,409,406,Nos. 405,s. 405 |
| Parties | AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. NO 405. NATIONAL EXPRESS COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. NO 406. UNITED STATES EXPRESS COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. NO 407. WELLS, FARGO, & COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. NO 408. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES. NO 409 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., Lewis Cass Ledyard, Frank H. Platt, Carl A. deGersdorf, W. W. Green, and Charles W. Stockton for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 523-524 intentionally omitted] Attorney General Bonaparte and Solicitor General Hoyt for appellee.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 525-527 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
These cases are appeals from the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Illinois, and were submitted upon oral argument and printed record and briefs in No. 405. They involve the same question and hence will be disposed of together. The petition was filed in the circuit court under the 3d section of the Elkins act (32 Stat. at L. 847, chap. 708, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 880), providing for the institution of such suit whenever the Interstate Commerce Commission shall have reasonable grounds for believing that any common carrier is engaged in the carriage of passengers or freight traffic between given points at less than the published rates on file, or is granting any discrimination forbidden by law.
An injunction was issued restraining the express companies from 'issuing any frank or other document for the free transportation of property to the following persons, to wit: the officers, agents, attorneys, and employees of said defendant and their respective families; the officers ad employees of other express companies and their respective families; the officers and employees of any railroad or any other common carrier subject to the act to regulate commerce and its amendments, and their respective families; or to any of said persons; and from trans- porting and forwarding for said persons above named or any of them, without demanding and receiving the lawful rate of payment therefor, any shipments of property subject to the provisions of said interstate commerce act and its amendments.'
The facts are not seriously in dispute and were stipulated at the trial, and show that it has been the custom of express companies for many years to issue franks such as are embraced in the injunction. These franks were not issued except to officers and employees of the companies and their families, and to the officers and employees of other express companies and transportation companies and members of their families, in exchange for passes issued by the latter companies to the officers and employees of the express companies. The franks provided that they should not be used for business packages or for transportation of extra heavy weight, money, bonds, jewelry, live stock, or business consignments, and only for the personal packages of the holder of such frank, he being required to assume all risk of loss or damage, from whatever cause, to property carried under the frank.
The question is, Does the interstate commerce law prohibit express companies from giving free transportation of personal packages to their officers and employees and members of their families, and to the officers of other transportation companies and members of their families, in exchange for passes issued by the latter to the officers of the express companies? The circuit court held the affirmative of this proposition.
It is the contention of the government that such transportation is forbidden by § 2 of the act of 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 379, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3155), forbidding the transportation of property or passengers subject to the provisions of the act for any person for a greater or less compensation for any service rendered or to be rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person for doing for him the like service, and by § 3 of the same act (24 Stat. at L. 380, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3155), which makes it unlawful to give any undue preference or advantage to any particular persons of locality, and by the provisions of the Elkins act hereafter quoted.
Without considering whether the case at bar is covered by the section of the interstate commerce act referred to, an injunction is authorized under § 3 of the Elkins act, where a common carrier is engaged in the carriage of passengers or freight at less than the published rate on file, and we shall limit our attention to certain provisions of the Elkins law in this connection. Section 1 of the Elkins act provides ( the Hepburn act, June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. at L. 584, 587, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, pp. 892, 898):
'The wilful failure upon the part of any carrier subject to said acts to file and publish the tariffs or rates and charges as required by said acts, or strictly to observe such tariffs until changed according to law, shall be a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof the corporation offending shall be subject to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars nor more than twenty thousand dollars for each offense.
* * * * *
'It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, or corporation to offer, grant, or give, or to solicit, accept, or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in respect of the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier subject to said act to regulate commerce and the acts amendatory thereof, whereby any such property shall, by any device whatever, be transported at a less rate than that named in the tariffs published and filed by such carrier, as is required by said act to regulate commerce and the acts amendatory thereof, or whereby any other advantage is given or discrimination is practised.
* * * * *
'Whenever any carrier files with the Interstate Commerce Commission or publishes a particular rate under the provisions of the act to regulate commerce or acts amendatory thereof, or participates in any rates so filed or published, that rate as against such carrier, its officers or agents, in any prosecution begun under this act, shall be conclusively deemed to be the legal rate, and any departure from such rate, or any offer to depart therefrom, shall be deemed to be an offense under this section of this act.'
Section 6 of the interstate commerce act, as amended by the same law, provides:
'Nor shall any carrier charge or demand, or collect or receive, a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in such tariffs, than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time; nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property except such as are specified in such tariffs: Provided, That whenever the word 'carrier' occurs in this act it shall be held to mean 'common carrier."
The amendment to the interstate commerce act by the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 584), chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 892), brought express companies within the terms of the act. The express companies were therefore obliged to file and publish their rates for the transportation of property under § 6 of the interstate commerce act as amended, and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Patterson
... ... follows, to wit: The National Cash Register Company, a ... corporation, ... truckmen, express companies, railroad common carriers, ... in American Express Co. v. United States, 212 U.S ... 522, ... Consolidated Gas Co., 130 ... U.S. 396, 409, 9 Sup.Ct. 553, 32 L.Ed. 979; National ... 276, 49 L.Ed. 518, and of Judge Adams in Smith v. United ... States, 157 F. 721, ... ...
-
Attorney Gen. ex rel. Mann v. City of Methuen
...general purpose is to restrict the sense or make clear the meaning of that which has gone before. American Express Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 522, 534, 29 Sup. Ct. 315, 53 L. Ed. 635;Georgia Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 181, 9 Sup. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377;Brennan v. Brennan, 185 ......
-
Bryant Lumber Company v. Fourche River Lumber Company
...L.Ed. 681, 28 S.Ct. 428; see, also, Fourche River Lbr. Co. v. Bryant Lumber Co., 230 U.S. 316, 57 L.Ed. 1498, 33 S.Ct. 887; Adams Exp. Co. v. U. S., 212 U.S. 522, 523. with the covenants which would be legal and valid, if standing alone, the parties to this contract have included other cove......
-
American Ry. Express Co. v. Rhody
...express companies. United States v. Adams Exp. Co., 229 U. S. 381, 33 Sup. Ct. 878, 57 L. Ed. 1237;American Exp. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 522, 29 Sup. Ct. 315, 53 L. Ed. 635;State ex rel. v. Adams Exp. Co., 171 Ind. 138, 85 N. E. 337, 966, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 93;Adams Exp. Co. v. Coo......