Chicago, Indianapolis Louisville Railway Company v. United States

• Decision Date: 20 February 1911
• Docket Number: No. 74,74
• Citation: 55 L.Ed. 305,219 U.S. 486,31 S.Ct. 272
• Parties: CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS, & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

219 U.S. 486

31 S.Ct. 272

55 L.Ed. 305

CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS, & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt.,

v UNITED STATES.

No. 74.

Submitted December 16, 1910.

Decided February 20, 1911.

Messrs. E. C. Field and H. R. Kurrio for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from page 487 intentionally omitted] The Attorney General and Mr. Barton Corneau for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 488-490 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court:

By the act of Congress of February 19th, 1903, further regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the states, as amended by the act of June 29th, 1906, it was provided that whenever the Interstate Commerce Commission had reasonable ground to believe that a common carrier was engaged in carrying passengers or freight between given points at less than the published rates on file, or was committing any discrimination forbidden by law, the facts could be set forth in a petition in equity to the proper circuit court of the United States, whose duty it was made summarily to inquire into the circumstances, without formal pleadings and proceedings applicable to ordinary suits in equity. If the court became satisfied upon investigation that the facts existed as alleged, it was then by proper orders to enforce the observance of the published tariffs, or direct a discontinuance of the alleged discrimination, with such right of appeal as was then provided by law to the parties interested in the traffic or to the carrier. 32 Stat. at L. 847, 848, Pt. 1, chap. 708;¹ 34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591.²

The present suit was brought by the United States under that statute against the Chicago, Indianapolis, & Louisville Railway Company, a corporation of Indiana which operated the lines of railroad known as the Monon Route, and extending from Chicago through Indiana to Cincinnati, and from Michigan City, Indina, to Louisville, Kentucky. The railway company was engaged in the business of carrying passengers over the above lines.

The petition alleged that on the 24th day of January, 1907, the defendant made a written contract with the Frank A. Munsey Company, publisher, at New York, of Munsey's Magazine, which contained, among other provisions, the following:

'Agreement between the Monon Route (Chicago, Indianapolis, & Louisville Railway Company) and $059 Frank A Munsey Company publisher. Entered into this 24 day of January, 1907.

'Whereas, the said publisher issues Munsey's Magazine a publication, published at New York City, New York, Chicago office 423 Marquette Building, and which has a regular circulation of 643,000 each issue.

'And whereas, the said Monon Route desires to advertise in said publication, which advertising the said publisher agrees to do upon the following terms and conditions, which are mutually agreed upon:

'1st. The said publisher agrees to publish in said publication an advertisement of the Monon Route as follows: One page 'ad' (divided as desired) said advertisement to appear Favorably, and occupy a space of not less than one page and to be published as desired issues of said publication.

'2d. In full consideration of the foregoing advertising, the Monon Route agrees to issue the following nontransferable transportation based on regular published rate: Trip tickets or mileage To the value of Five hundred Dollars ($500 ) for the personal use of the publisher, his employees or immediate members of his or their families, which said transportation shall be limited for use not later than December 31, 1907.

'3d. Under no circumstances must the transportation issued under this contract be sold or transferred to or used by any other than the person to whom issued, as such sale, transfer, or use would be a misdemeanor under the law.

'4th. It is understood and agreed that the transportation issued under this contract shall be read to points on the Monon Route, and not to points on any other road. . . . Further, should said publisher or any person named on said tickets allow any other person to use same, or offer to sell, sell or transfer the same, then said publisher agrees to pay the said Monon Route as a penalty the full rate of fare which would have been paid for regular tickets. . . . This contract expires December 31, 1907, unless otherwise stipulated.'

The petition also alleged that after that contract was entered into, and previous to April 3d, 1907, the defendant railway company, pursuant to the above contract, transported over its railway from points in one state to points in other states, the employees of the Munsey Company upon trip and mileage tickets issued for their benefit.

That such interstate transportation, paid for according to the company's published rates, amounted to $145.10, while the only compensation received by it for transportation previous to May 10th, 1907, was the publication in the March issue of the Munsey Magazine of one fourth of a page advertisement of the Monon Route, which the parties valued at $125;

That while the railroad company was thus transporting the Munsey employees, it contemporaneously transported over its lines between the same points other persons, and exacted and received in money from them, in each instance, the full amount of its published rates and fares, the conditions and circumstances of the transportation being the same in the cases of employees and others;

That in accordance with the contract in question the railway company was, at the date of this suit, still furnishing interstate transportation to the publisher of Munsey's Magazine and the members of his family, and to his employees and the members of their families;

That the railway company had entered into like contracts with other publishers of magazines, newspapers, and similar pericdicals to the number of 251, under the terms of which latter contracts the company, at the date this suit was commenced, was furnishing interstate transportation over its lines to such persons as were from time to time designated by the publishers last above mentioned, but not receiving...