Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Love

• Citation: 29 Okla. 738,1911 OK 352,119 P. 207
• Decision Date: 14 November 1911
• Docket Number: Case Number: 1849
• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. LOVE et al.

1911 OK 352

119 P. 207

29 Okla. 738

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

Case Number: 1849

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: November 14, 1911

Syllabus

¶0 PROHIBITION--When Granted--Exercise of Judicial Powers. Prohibition is the proper remedy, where an inferior tribunal assumes to exercise judicial power not granted by law, or is attempting to make an unauthorized application of judicial force, and the writ will not be withheld because other concurrent remedies exist; it not appearing that such remedies are equally adequate and convenient.

Application by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company for writ of prohibition to J. E. Love and others, members of the Corporation Commission, and the Corporation Commission. Writ granted.

Williams, J., dissenting

Cottingham & Bledsoe, for plaintiff

Charles West, Atty. Gen., and Charles L. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants

KANE, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding in prohibition, praying this court to prohibit the Corporation Commission of the state and the members thereof from proceeding with the trial of the plaintiff upon 12 separate and distinct citations for contempts growing out of violations of rule No. 10 of order No. 167 of the Corporation Commission, by charging storage on interstate shipments of freight, in accordance with the published interstate tariffs of the plaintiff. Rule No. 10, supra, provides that certain free time be given the consignees who live five or more miles from a railroad station, and in the published interstate tariffs of said plaintiff such free time was not allowed, and the plaintiff, in collecting storage charges, observed the terms and provisions of the interstate tariffs, which admittedly are in conflict with said rule No. 10. The Attorney General's view of the case is stated in his brief as follows:

"As stated in the return: 'This case is submitted to the court for the sole purpose of determining whether or not a rule regulating demurrage charges is an interference with interstate commerce, and, if so, is it a burden on interstate commerce or an aid to interstate commerce, and whether or not Congress, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, has taken jurisdiction of the subject-matter herein for the purpose of regulation.' The relief prayed herein is to prohibit the State Corporation Commission from proceeding further with the trial of plaintiff for alleged violations of rule No. 10 of order No. 167 of the Commission, relating to free time to consignees living five miles or more from the railroad station, for storage charges on freight, received by interstate transportation. It is alleged in the petition, and admitted in the return, that all of the storage charges involved in the present hearing are upon interstate shipments, and that the charges are in accordance with the schedule and tariffs filed by plaintiff with the Interstate Commerce Commission in effect at said time.

"The congressional enactment, entitled 'An act to regulate commerce,' approved February 4, 1887, as amended by Act June 29, 1906, relates only to interstate commerce. Section 1 of same provides, among other things, that 'the term "transportation" shall include * * * all services in connection with the receipt, delivery, elevation, and transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage, and handling of property transported.' U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1149. Section 6 of the same act requires every common carrier doing an interstate business to 'file with the Interstate Commerce Commission and print and keep open to public inspection schedules showing all the rates, fares, and charges for transportation between different points on its own route and between points on its own route and points on the route of any other carrier by railroad, etc. * * * The schedule printed as aforesaid * * * shall state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, etc. * * * No carrier shall 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 * * * than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time.' Section 10 of the same act prescribes severe penalties for a violation of any of the foregoing provisions. It must be conceded, from the provisions cited, that storage charges on interstate shipments of freight are incidental to and a part of the transportation of interstate commerce, and that Congress, through the Interstate Commerce Commission, has taken jurisdiction of the regulation of storage charges on interstate shipments of freight, such as are involved here, thus depriving the state of such jurisdiction. The other branch of the inquiry, as to whether such storage charges are a burden upon, or an aid to, interstate commerce, seems to have been answered by this court by the first paragraph of the syllabus in the case of St. Louis & San Francisco R. R.

...