Blair v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 168-D.,168-D. |
| Citation | 45 F.2d 792 |
| Parties | BLAIR et al. v. CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois |
C. B. Cardy, W. F. Garman, and D. Y. Erickson, all of Chicago, Ill., and Grant & Jones, of Danville, Ill., for plaintiffs.
L. P. Day, of Chicago, Ill., and Gunn, Penwell & Lindley, of Danville, Ill., for defendants.
This is a suit brought under section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA § 16) to recover certain sums aggregating $4,429.44, with interest, alleged to be due from defendants to plaintiffs in pursuance of an award in the latter's favor in a proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of said section provide that, after hearing upon complaint made as provided by section 13 (49 USCA § 13), the Commission, if it determines that any party is entitled to an award of damages under the provisions of the act, shall make an order directing the carrier to pay to such party the sum to which he is entitled, and that, if the carrier does not comply with such order, any person for whose benefit such order was made may file in the federal court a petition setting forth the cause of action and the order of the Commission. The act further provides that such suit shall proceed in all respects as other civil suits for damages, except that on the trial the findings and orders of the Commission shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. There is a further provision that, if the petitioner prevails, he shall be allowed to recover reasonable attorney fees to be taxed and collected as a part of the costs.
The plaintiffs were retail coal dealers of Paris, Vermillion, and Dudley, Ill., and filed their complaint with the Commission against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, attacking as unjust and unreasonable the published rates on coal from Terre Haute and West Terre Haute to the points above mentioned and others. The defendants filed their general denials, and thereafter evidence was taken before an Examiner, who, in accordance with the practice, in due course filed a report. Defendant excepted thereto, and on January 3, 1928, Division 4 of the Commission entered an order holding the rates unreasonable to the extent that they exceed 76 cents per ton, and finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the sums now sued for as unreasonable freight charges. A petition for rehearing was denied April 9, 1928. Other evidence, however, was taken October 23, 1928, before the Examiner for the purpose of receiving proof as to the amount of reparation due under the Commission's decision, and as a result the amounts for which suit is now brought were found to be due. Upon refusals of defendants to pay, this suit was filed January 27, 1930.
Defendants deny that the Commission granted them a fair and adequate hearing or that the plaintiffs were damaged; allege that the Commission's report and order were not supported by the evidence and that the Commission had before it no competent evidence to sustain its findings or order.
Under section 16 of the statute the findings and order of the Commission are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. The effect of this statute is as stated by Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 236 U. S. 414, 35 S. Ct. 328, 59 L. Ed. 644, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 691, to establish a rebuttable presumption, cutting off no defense, and taking no question of fact from either court or jury. It merely creates a rule of evidence and does not abridge the rights of either party. To the same effect are Mills v. L. V. R. R. Co., 238 U. S. 473, 35 S. Ct. 888, 59 L. Ed. 1414; Pittsburgh & W. V. Ry. Co. v. United States (D. C.) 6 F.(2d) 646; and Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (C. C.) 164 F. 645.
The hearing in this court is de novo, and the court is entitled to receive and consider evidence in addition to that before the Commission, but the prima facie case made out by the findings and order of the Commission will prevail unless overcome by evidence submitted by defendants.
Considering the evidence and bearing in mind the objections to and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Scott County Milling Co.
... ... Ry. Co. v. Jacoby & Co., 242 ... U.S. 89, 61 L.Ed. 165; Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pa ... Ry. Co., 230 U.S. 247, 57 L.Ed. 1472; Blair v ... Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 45 F.2d 792; ... Kanawha Black Band Coal Co. v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 148 ... S.E. 855; Krauss Bros ... ...
-
Campbell v. Mason
... ... held that a delivery of a complaint to the clerk in the ... proper office was in law a filing of the complaint; and in ... Blair v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. (D.C.) ... 45 F.2d 792, it was held that "filing" is actual ... delivery to the clerk without any regard to ... ...
-
Black United Front v. WASHINGTON MET. AREA TRANS. COM'N
...activities here produced a filing without regard to any required action the Commission omitted thereafter. Blair v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry., 45 F.2d 792, 794 (E.D.Ill. 1931), aff'd, 59 F.2d 478 (7th Cir. 1932) (failure to indorse document as filed); People v. Ramirez, 112 Cal.App. 507......
-
Farris v. Meyer Schuman Co., 7371.
...produced on the trial to overcome them. Spano v. Western Fruit Growers, Inc., 10 Cir., 83 F.2d 150, 152. See also Blair v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., D.C., 45 F.2d 792 and cases cited In the instant case the Secretary found as a fact that the Railroad Perishable Inspection Agency h......