Frederick Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Commission, No. 712

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHolmes
Citation237 U.S. 434,35 S.Ct. 645,59 L.Ed. 1036
Docket NumberNo. 712
Decision Date10 May 1915
PartiesFREDERICK W. ELLIS, Appt., v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

237 U.S. 434
35 S.Ct. 645
59 L.Ed. 1036
FREDERICK W. ELLIS, Appt.,

v.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

No. 712.
Argued April 12 and 13, 1915.
Decided May 10, 1915.

Page 435

Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg, Cordenio A. Severance, Robert E. Olds, Alfred R. Urion, and Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 435-436 intentionally omitted]

Page 437

Messrs. Edward W. Hines and Joseph W. Folk for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 437-442 intentionally omitted]

Page 442

Assistant Attorney General Underwood for the United States.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court, made upon a petition of the appellee, the Interstate Commerce Commission, filed under the act to regulate commerce, § 12. The order directs the appellant to answer certain questions propounded and to produce certain documents called for by the appellee. There is no doubt that this appeal lies. The order is not like one made to a witness before an examiner or on the stand in the course of a proceeding inter alios in court. Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S. 117, 50 L. ed. 686, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356. It is the end of a proceeding begun against the witness. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 48 L. ed. 860, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563. Therefore we pass at once to the statement of the case.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, reciting that it appeared from complaint on file that the allowances paid for the use of private cars, the practices governing the handling and icing of such cars, and the minimum carload weights applicable to the commodities shipped

Page 443

therein, on the part of carriers subject to the act to regulate commerce, violated that act in various ways, ordered that a proceeding of investigation be instituted by the Commission of its own motion to determine whether such allowances, practices, or minimum carload weights were in violation of the act as alleged, with a view to issuing such orders as might be necessary to correct discriminations and make applicable reasonable weights. It ordered that carriers by railroad subject to the act be made parties respondent, and, later, that all persons and corporations owning or operating cars and other vehicles and instrumentalities and facilities of shipment or carriage of property in interstate commerce be made parties also. In the proceedings thus ordered the questions propounded were put to the appellant, the vice president and general manager of the Armour Car Lines.

The Armour Car Lines is a New Jersey corporation that owns, manufactures, and maintains refrigerator, tank, and box cars, and that lets these cars to the railroad or to shippers. It also owns and operates icing stations on various lines of railway, and from these ices and re-ices the cars, when set by the railroads at the icing plant, by filling the bunkers from the top, after which the railroads remove the cars. The railroads pay a certain rate per ton, and charge the shipper according to tariffs on file with the Commission. Finally it furnishes cars for the shipment of perishable fruits, etc., and keeps them iced, the railroads paying for the same. It has no control over motive power or over the movement of the cars that it furnishes as above, and in short, notwithstanding some argument to the contrary, is not a common carrier subject to the act. It is true that the definition of transportation in § 1 of the act includes such instrumentalities as the Armour Car Lines lets to the railroads. But the definition is a preliminary to a requirement that the carriers shall furnish them upon reasonable request,

Page 444

not that the owners and builders shall be regarded as carriers,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
105 practice notes
  • Cochran v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 19-10396
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 13 December 2021
    ...which uniformly has met with judicial condemnation." Id. at 26 (alteration in original) (quoting Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 237 U.S. 434, 445 (1915)). And "[t]he fear that some malefactor may go unwhipped of justice weighs as nothing against this just and strong condemnation of a ......
  • Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corporation, No. 218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 6 May 1942
    ...an administrative proceeding; there, seemingly, an interlocutory appeal may lie before commitment for contempt. Ellis v. I. C. C., 1915, 237 U.S. 434, 445, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036; Harriman v. I. C. C., 1908, 211 U.S. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 L.Ed. 253.12 But as the appellants in these cas......
  • Texas Ry Co v. United States 11 8212 13, 1932, No. 1
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 May 1933
    ...55 L.Ed. 283; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Diffenbaugh, 222 U.S. 42, 46, 32 S.Ct. 22, 56 L.Ed. 83; Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 237 U.S. 434, 445, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036; United States v. Illinois Central R.R., 263 U.S. 515, 524, 44 S.Ct. 189, 68 L.Ed. 417; At- Page 638 chison, ......
  • F. T. C. v. Texaco, Inc., Nos. 74-1547
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 13 June 1977
    ...an order of a district court granting or denying an agency's petition for enforcement of a subpoena is final and appealable. Ellis v. ICC, 237 U.S. 434, 442, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036 (1915); Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. EEOC, 398 F.2d 248, 251 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
105 cases
  • Cochran v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 19-10396
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • 13 December 2021
    ...which uniformly has met with judicial condemnation." Id. at 26 (alteration in original) (quoting Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 237 U.S. 434, 445 (1915)). And "[t]he fear that some malefactor may go unwhipped of justice weighs as nothing against this just and strong condemnation of a ......
  • Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corporation, No. 218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 6 May 1942
    ...an administrative proceeding; there, seemingly, an interlocutory appeal may lie before commitment for contempt. Ellis v. I. C. C., 1915, 237 U.S. 434, 445, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036; Harriman v. I. C. C., 1908, 211 U.S. 407, 29 S.Ct. 115, 53 L.Ed. 253.12 But as the appellants in these cas......
  • Texas Ry Co v. United States 11 8212 13, 1932, No. 1
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 29 May 1933
    ...55 L.Ed. 283; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Diffenbaugh, 222 U.S. 42, 46, 32 S.Ct. 22, 56 L.Ed. 83; Ellis v. Interstate Commerce Comm., 237 U.S. 434, 445, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036; United States v. Illinois Central R.R., 263 U.S. 515, 524, 44 S.Ct. 189, 68 L.Ed. 417; At- Page 638 chison, ......
  • F. T. C. v. Texaco, Inc., Nos. 74-1547
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 13 June 1977
    ...an order of a district court granting or denying an agency's petition for enforcement of a subpoena is final and appealable. Ellis v. ICC, 237 U.S. 434, 442, 35 S.Ct. 645, 59 L.Ed. 1036 (1915); Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. EEOC, 398 F.2d 248, 251 (3d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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