Arizona Grocery Co v. Atchison Ry Co, 98

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBERTS
• Citation: 52 S.Ct. 183,284 U.S. 370,76 L.Ed. 348
• Parties: ARIZONA GROCERY CO. v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. et al
• Docket Number: No. 98,98
• Decision Date: 04 January 1932

284 U.S. 370 52 S.Ct. 183 76 L.Ed. 348 ARIZONA GROCERY CO.

v.

ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. et al.

No. 98. Argued Dec. 8, 1931. Decided Jan. 4, 1932.

[Syllabus from pages 370-372 intentionally omitted]

Page 372

Messrs. Frank L. Snell, Jr., of Phoenix, Ariz., R. C. Fulbright, of Houston, Tex., and Samuel White, of Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 372-374 intentionally omitted]

Page 374

Messrs. R. S. Outlaw, of Chicago, Ill., and A. Burton Mason, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondents.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 374-381 intentionally omitted]

Page 381

Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case turns upon the power of the Interestate Commerce Commission to award reparations with respect to shipments which moved under rates approved or prescribed by it.

The respondent carriers maintained a rate of $1.045 per hundred pounds for shipment of sugar from California points to Phoenix, Ariz. On complaint of petitioner and others, the Commission, after hearing, on June 22, 1921, found that the rate attacked had been, then was, and for the future would be, unreasonable to the extent that it exceeded 96.5 cents,¹ and ordered the establishment

Page 382

of a rate not exceeding that figure. September 17, 1921, the carriers promulgated a rate of 96 cents, which they later voluntarily reduced to 86.5 cents. November 3, 1922, certain of the complainants in the earlier proceeding, other than petitioner, filed a new petition attacking the current rate. While this case was pending the carriers, on January 10, 1924, again made a voluntary reduction to 84 cents. February 25, 1925, the Commission filed a report prescribing for the future a maximum reasonable rate of 71 cents, to that extent modifying its earlier order.² Reparation was found to be due shippers under the old rate, but none was awarded. February 8, 1927, the second case was reopened for further consideration, but the 71-cent rate was not disturbed. In a later proceeding, with which petitioner's and other claims for reparation were consolidated, the Commission found that the rates to Phoenix from and after July 1, 1922, had been unreasonable to the extent they had exceeded 73 cents from Northern California and 71 cents from Southern California, prescribed rates for the future from those origins to Phoenix and other Arizona destinations, and awarded petitioner and other shippers reparation in the amounts by which the rates paid (86.5 and 84 cents) exceeded those (73 and 71 cents) found to have been the reasonable rates during the period since July 1, 1922.³

The date of the first shipment made by petitioner on which reparation was awarded was February 21, 1923, and of the last February 5, 1925, so that all were made between the effective dates of the first and second orders above mentioned.

The respondents objected that they should not be required to pay reparations on shipments which moved under rates approved or prescribed by the Commission as reasonable. To this that body replied: 'We reserve the right, upon a more comprehensive record, to modify our

Page 383

previous findings, upon matters directly in issue before us as to which it clearly appears that our previous findings would not accord substantial justice under the laws which we administer. We have such a case here. For the first time the record before us is comprehensive in the evidence which it contains upon the reasonableness of the rates assailed. Upon this record we reach the conclusion that the rates prescribed in the first Phoenix case, during the period embraced in these complaints, were unreasonable and that a lower rate would have been reasonable during that period. If we are within our authority in finding that a lower rate would have been reasonable, then it must follow that shippers who paid the freight charges at the higher rate paid charges which were unreasonable, and are entitled to reparation. * * *'

The carriers having failed to pay the amount awarded, the petitioner sued therefor in the District Court, and recovered judgment. The Circuit Court reversed, and entered judgment for respondents.⁴ This Court granted certiorari. Whether, as the petitioner argues, the Commission correctly construed its authority, is to be determined by examination of the legislation defining its powers.

The exaction of unreasonable rates by a public carrier was forbidden by the common law. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 275, 12 S. Ct. 844, 36 L. Ed. 699. The public policy which underlay this rule could, however, be vindicated only in an action brought by him who paid the excessive charge to recover damages thus sustained. Rates, fares, and charges were fixed by the carrier, which took its chances that in an action by the shipper these might be adjudged unreasonable and reparation be awarded.

But we are here specially concerned with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 ⁵ and with some of the changes of

Page 384

supplements adopted since its original enactment. That act did not take from the carriers their power to initiate rates; that is, the power in the first instance to fix rates or to increase or to reduce them. Skinner & Eddy Corporation v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 564, 39 S. Ct. 375, 63 L. Ed. 772; Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 197, 16 S. Ct. 700, 40 L. Ed. 935. In order to render rates definite and certain, and to prevent discrimination and other abuses, the statute required the filing and publishing of tariffs specifying the rates adopted by the carrier, and made these the legal rates; that is, those which must be charged to all shippers alike.⁶ Any deviation from the published rate was declared a criminal offense, and also a civil wrong giving rise to an action for damages by the injured shipper. ⁷ Although the act thus created a legal rate, it did not abrogate, but expressly affirmed, the common-law duty to charge no more than a reasonable rate, and left upon the carrier the burden of conforming its charges to that standard.⁸ In other words, the legal rate was not made by the statute a lawful rate-it was lawful only if it was reasonable. Under section 6, the shipper was bound to pay the legal rate; but, if he could show that it was unreasonable, he might recover reparation.

The act altered the common law by lodging in the Commission the power theretofore exercised by courts, of determining the reasonableness of a published rate.⁹ If the finding on this question was against the carrier, reparation

Page 385

was to be awarded the shipper, and only the enforcement of the award was relegated to the courts. In passing upon the issue of fact, the function of the Commission was judicial in character;¹⁰ its action affected only the past so far as any remedy of the shipper was concerned, and adjudged for the present merely that the rate was then unreasonable; no authority was granted to prescribe rates to be charged in the future. Indeed, after a finding that an existing rate was unreasonable, the carrier might put into effect a new and slightly different rate and compel the shipper to resort to a new proceeding to have this declared unreasonable.¹¹ Since the carrier had complete liberty of action in making the rate, it necessarily followed that upon a finding of unreasonableness an award of reparation should be measured by the excess paid, subject only to statutory limitations of time.

Under the act of 1887 the Commission was without power either to prescribe a given rate thereafter to be charged (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 17 S. Ct. 896, 42 L. Ed. 243), or to set a maximum rate for the future (Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, supra, 162 U. S. page 196, 16 S. Ct. 700, 40 L. Ed. 935), for the reason that so to do would be to exercise a legislative function not delegated to that body by the statute.¹...