Baltimore Co v. United States

Decision Date03 June 1929
Docket NumberNo. 563,563
Citation73 L.Ed. 954,279 U.S. 781,49 S.Ct. 492
PartiesBALTIMORE & O. R. CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., Morison R. Waite, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Theodore Schmidt, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

Messrs. H. H. Larimore and Charles S. Burg, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is the second appeal in this case; the first was heard and determined at last term. 277 U. S. 291, 48 S. Ct. 520, 72 L. Ed. 885. The appellants and appellees are the same here as they were on that appeal. The former are called the east side roads, and the appellee carriers are called the west side roads. The western termini of the appellants are at East St. Louis, and the eastern termini of the appellee carriers are at St. Louis. For many years the east side roads and the west side roads have exchanged traffic by means of the facilities of the Terminal Railroad Association. United States v. Terminal R. Ass'n, 224 U. S. 383, 32 S. Ct. 507, 56 L. Ed. 810; Ex parte United States, 226 U. S. 420, 33 S. Ct. 170, 57 L. Ed. 281; United States v. Terminal R. Ass'n, 236 U. S. 194, 35 S. Ct. 408, 59 L. Ed. 535; Terminal R. R. Ass'n v. United States, 266 U. S. 17, 45 S. Ct. 5, 69 L. Ed. 150.

The west side roads, in order to meet the competition of other rail carriers west of the river whose lines reached East St. Louis, made the same rates to both cities, and absorbed and bore the cost of transferring all freight across the river. On most of the traffic the east side roads made the same rates to both cities; but, on through traffic moving on combination rates through both points, their rates applied only to East St. Louis.

After the decision of this court in Terminal R. R. Ass'n v. United States, 266 U. S. 17, 45 S. Ct. 5, 69 L. Ed. 150, the west side roads made complaint to the Interstate Commerce Commission and secured its order requiring the east side roads to absorb the charges for transfer across the river on all west-bound through traffic moving on combination rates which were the same on St. Louis as on East St. Louis. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 113 I. C. C. 681. The east side roads brought this suit against the United States to set aside the order; the Commission and west side roads intervened. The court, consisting of three judges, dismissed the suit for want of equity. This court reversed the decree, and by its mandate directed that such further proceedings be had in the case, in conformity with the opinion and decree, as according to right and justice and the laws of the United States ought to be had.

The mandate having been filed in the District Court, the appellants applied for a decree in conformity with it. They averred that, by reason of the erroneous dismissal of the suit, they had been compelled, up to the time our decree of reversal went into effect, to comply with the order of the Commission from its effective date, December 11, 1926, and had paid the transfer charges covered by the order. They prayed that the decree require the west side roads severally to restore to the respective east side roads the amounts which, because of the erroneous decree of dismissal, they had borne and paid, and that the case be referred to a master to ascertain the amounts.

After hearing, the District Court, as before consisting of three judges, vacated its earlier decree and set aside the order of the Commission. The court found that appellants had complied with the order of the Commission as alleged, retained jurisdiction of the case, and later entered its final decree denying appellants' application for restitution and for reference to a master. This appeal was taken from such denial.

The west side roads move to dismiss on the ground that the part of the decree complained of is not reviewable here on this appeal.

The Urgent Deficiencies Act of October 22, 1913, 38 Stat. 219,1 provides that no decree setting aside any order of the Commission shall be granted by any District Court unless the case shall be heard and determined by three judges. And the act gives aggrieved parties the right to appeal to this court from a final decree in any suit brought to set aside such orders. There is no question as to the jurisdiction of this court on the first appeal or as to the validity of its mandate. The present controversy concerns the construction and effect to be given to the mandate.

Appellants' application for restitution was in effect an equity proceeding resulting in a final decree. Perkins v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328, 330, 14 L. Ed. 441. When a lower federal court refuses to give effect to or misconstrues our mandate, its action may be controlled by this court, either upon a new appeal or by writ of mandamus. In re Potts, 166 U. S. 263, 265, 17 S. Ct. 520, 41 L. Ed. 994; In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247, 255, 16 S. Ct. 291, 40 L. Ed. 414, and cases cited. It is well understood that this court has power to do all that is necessary to give effect of its judgments. The act authorizes this appeal.

Moreover the proceeding below out of which the denial of restitution arose is incidental to and in effect a part of the main suit. Under the act a court of three judges was required for the entry of the decree on the mandate. Ex parte United States, supra, 424 (33 S. Ct. 170); Ex parte Metropolitan Water Co., 220 U. S. 539, 544, 31 S. Ct. 600, 55 L. Ed. 575. The jurisdiction of the court so constituted necessarily includes power to make all orders required to carry on such suits and to enforce the rights and obligations of the parties that arise in the litigation. This appeal rests on the same foundation as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
137 cases
  • Atlantic Coast Line Co v. State of Florida State of Florida v. United States 8212 1935
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1935
    ...Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern R. Co., 249 U.S. 134, 39 S.Ct. 237, 63 L.Ed. 517; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781, 49 S.Ct. 492, 73 L.Ed. 954. In No. 344, the appellant is the railroad company which declares itself aggrieved because restitution was n......
  • Texas American Asphalt Corporation v. Walker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • September 18, 1959
    ...Milling Co. v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co., 249 U.S. 134, 145-146, 39 S.Ct. 237, 63 L.Ed. 517; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781, 785-786, 49 S.Ct. 492, 73 L.Ed. 954; Public Service Commission of State of Missouri v. Brashear Freight Lines, Inc., 312 U.S. 621, 629, 6......
  • Los Angeles Gas Electric Corporation v. Railroad Commission of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 8, 1933
    ...72 L.Ed. 218; Cleveland, etc., Ry. v. United States, 275 U.S. 404, 414, 48 S.Ct. 189, 72 L.Ed. 338; Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781, 787, 49 S.Ct. 492, 73 L.Ed. 954; Railroad Commission v. Maxcy, 281 U.S. 82, 50 S.Ct. 228, 74 L.Ed. 717; Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 2......
  • Capital Transit Co. v. Public Utilities Com'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 10, 1953
    ...v. Draughon, 173 Ala. 338, 56 So. 209 (1911), or upon a motion filed in the original proceeding, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781, 49 S.Ct. 492, 73 L.Ed. 954 (1929); Northwestern Fuel Co. v. Brock, 139 U.S. 216, 11 S.Ct. 523, 35 L.Ed. 151 (1891); see also Restatement, Re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Remedies for Wrongfully-issued Preliminary Injunctions: the Case for Disgorgement of Profits
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 32-04, June 2009
    • Invalid date
    ...to Provisional Injunctive Relief, 52 N.C. L. REV. 1091, 1122-25 (1974). 30. See, e.g., Baltimore and Ohio R.R. v. United States, 279 U.S. 781 (1929) (ordering restitutions of all payments made by the appellants in favor of the appellees, pursuant to a judgment subsequently reversed); Nw. Fu......

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