Inland Steel Co v. United States Chicagocoke Co v. Same

• Decision Date: 30 January 1939
• Docket Number: Nos. 227,BY-PRODUCT,228,s. 227
• Citation: 59 S.Ct. 415,306 U.S. 153,83 L.Ed. 557
• Parties: INLAND STEEL CO. v. UNITED STATES et al. CHICAGOCOKE CO. v. SAME
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

306 U.S. 153

59 S.Ct. 415

83 L.Ed. 557

INLAND STEEL CO.

v UNITED STATES et al.

CHICAGO BY-PRODUCT COKE CO.

v. SAME.

Nos. 227, 228.

Argued Jan. 3, 4, 1939.

Decided Jan. 30, 1939.

Messrs. John S. Burchmore and Nuel D. Belnap, both of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

Messrs. Edward M. Reidy, of Washington, D.C., and J. R. Barse, of Chicago, Ill., for appellees the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

In No. 227, after full hearings the Interstate Commerce Commission, on July 11, 1935, found and reported¹ that the Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad was engaged in the practice of paying an allowance for appellant's service in spotting cars in appellant's plant;² that appellant was performing this plant service for its own convenience; that the Railroad was under no legal obligation to spot the cars and therefore the allowance was paid for service for which the Railroad was not compensated under line-haul rates; that the allowance was unlawful and afforded appellant a preferential service, not accorded to shippers generally, amounting to refund or remission of part of the rates charged or collected as compensation for transporting freight. On the same date, an order of the Commission incorporated its report and findings, including the finding that 'by the payment of said allowances the Indiana Belt Railroad Company violates the Interstate Commerce Act.' This order also directed the Railroad to 'cease and desist on or before September 3, 1935, and thereafter to abstain from such unlawful practice.'

August 28, 1935, upon petition of appellant, the District Court, three judges sitting, granted an interlocutory injunction by which the Commission's report and order were 'suspended, stayed, and set aside'—'pending the further order of the court'; the Commission was restrained and enjoined from enforcing them; and, the Railroad having previously given public notice that its published tariff providing for the allowance would be cancelled as of September 3, 1935, in accordance with the Commission's order, the injunction suspended the effective date of the cancellation. But the interlocutory injunction also provided 'that until the further order of the Court, any and all sums due and payable to plaintiff (appellant), under the * * * tariff providing said allowance, shall be set up by defendant Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company on its books of account, which sums so set up shall be paid over to * * * (appellant), or canceled, only upon the further order of this Court, (appellant) * * * by its counsel having agreed in open court to such arrangement, without prejudice.'

February 26, 1937, the Commission entered an order purporting to extend the effective date of its command to 'cease and desist' to June 15, 1937, but specifically provided that its order of July 11, 1935, should 'in all other respects remain in full force and effect.'

April 27, 1938, the District Court dismissed appellant's petition for want of equity, dissolved the interlocutory injunction, and ordered the accrued allowances that had been set aside in a special account by the Railroad as required by the interlocutory injunction to 'be retained by * * * (the Railroad) as a part of its general funds and said account canceled.'

Appellant concedes the correctness of the District Court's decree holding the Commission's order valid, dismissing the petition and denying a permanent injunc- tion.³ The appeal only seeks a review of the Court's action in ordering that the unlawful allowances accumulated after the date of the interlocutory injunction be retained by the Railroad and not paid to appellant.

First. In granting the interlocutory injunction, the District Court proceeded under a jurisdictional Act which provides that '* * * the court, in its discretion, may restrain or suspend, in whole or in part, the operation of the commission's order pending the final hearing and determination of the suit.' ⁴ Appellant invoked the Court's equity powers.⁵

A Court of equity 'in the exercise of its discretion, frequently resorts to the expedient of imposing terms and conditions upon the party at whose instance it proposes to act. The power to impose such conditions is founded upon, and arises from, the discretion which the court has in such cases, to grant, or not to grant, the injunction applied for. It is a power inherent in the court, as a court of equity, and has been exercised from time immemorial.'⁶

In the exercise of its discretion, the District Court imposed conditions in its decree granting appellant's petition for an interlocutory injunction. Appellant neither objected to the conditions nor sought review of the Court's action in imposing them, but under the interlocutory injunction enjoyed for three years the suspension—which it had sought—of the Commission's order, pending litigation. Now, the litigation ended, appellant insists that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to do more than vacate its interlocutory injunction and dismiss the petition, since no pleadings of the Railroad or the Commission sought the creation of the special allowance account. But this overlooks the governing principle that it is the duty of a court of equity granting injunctive relief to do so upon conditions that will protect all—including the public—whose interests the injunction may affect.⁷ And the Commission, in defending its report and order, acted under its statutory duty as the representative of the interest which the public, as well as the railroads, have in the maintenance of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory transportation practices.⁸ Moreover, in intervening the Commission prayed that it have 'the benefit of such * * * decrees or relief as may be just and proper.'

The Interstate Commerce Commission has primary jurisdiction to determine whether the granting of allowances for services performed by shippers constitutes a discriminatory practice.⁹ Here, in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, the Commission considered the technical questions involved and made findings that the Railroad's practice was unlawfully preferential and discriminatory. In doing so, the Commission was acting in the interest of shippers generally and in behalf of the public and the national railroad system. The District Court, at the behest of this appellant, restrained the enforcement of the Commission's report and order embodying these findings. While thus acting in the interest of a single shipper, the Court properly took steps to protect the other interests—represented by the Commission—from injuries that the injunction might cause. It did so by ordering the payments, which the Commission had found unlawful, to be continued—on condition that they be segregated or paid into a separate account, pending the Court's review of the Commission's finding of illegality. This segregated account thus accrued as a result of judicial restraint of administrative proceedings in which the payments had been declared unlawful. When the Court finally determined that the administrative findings and order were correct, appellant could claim an interest in the fund only by asserting a right to payments forbidden by law, and it became the duty of the Court promptly to allocate the fund to its lawful owner.

An Equity Court having lawful control of a fund, in which there may be interests represented only by a duly authorized governmental agency, has the power and is charged with the duty of protecting those interests in disposing of the fund.¹⁰ Otherwise, rights (such as the right of this Railroad to restitution) might be impaired or cut off while an interlocutory injunction is in effect, as for instance by statutes of limitation. Here, the Court had the power and it was its duty so to fashion its equitable decree that appellant should not be the beneficiary of unlawful payments, and to prevent the dissipation of the Railroad's assets through unlawful preferences.

Second. Appellant further insists that the Court had no power to impose the particular conditions here, because the Railroad was ordered to retain (in a special account) allowances provided for in its...