James Hooker v. Martin Knapp No 773 Eagle White Lead Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission No 774
| Decision Date | 07 June 1912 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 773 and 774,s. 773 and 774 |
| Citation | 225 U.S. 302,225 U.S. 3028,56 L.Ed. 1099,32 S.Ct. 769 |
| Parties | JAMES J. HOOKER et al., Appts., v. MARTIN A. KNAPP et al., Appellees. NO 773. EAGLE WHITE LEAD COMPANY et al., Appts., v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Appellees. NO 774 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Francis B. James for appellants.
Assistant Attorney General Denison and Messrs. Jesse C. Adkins and Blackburn Esterline, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 303-305 intentionally omitted] Mr. P. J. Farrell for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. R. Walton Moore for the Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co.
The appellants in these cases originally applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for reduction of the maximum rates between Cincinnati and Chattanooga from the 76c. schedule to a 60c. schedule. The Commission refused to make the full extent of this reduction. Thereupon the respective parties filed bills in the commerce court, demanding that the Commission's order be 'suspended, set aside, annulled, and declared void and of no effect,' and that the individual defendants and the Commission be required by mandatory injunction to set aside and annul the said order, that the case be reopened, and the complainants given further relief. The two bills were consolidated. The individual defendants, the Commission, and the railroad company all demurred to the bill on the merits. The United States moved to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The court took jurisdiction, but dismissed on the merits. These appeals were then prosecuted. The cases are, in all respects, controlled by the opinion announced and ruling made in the Procter & Gamble Case, this day de- cided [225 U. S. 282, 56 L. ed. ——, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761], and for the reasons in that case stated, these cases must be and are remanded, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and it is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
... ... the Mobile & Ohio Railroad, Company and another against the ... Mississippi Railroad ... L.Ed. 1610; [154 Miss. 873] Interstate Commerce ... Commission v. C., R. I. & P ... 457, 62 L.Ed. 831; Hooker v ... Knapp, 225 U.S. 302, 56 L.Ed. 1099; ... ...
-
Rochester Telephone Corporation v. United States
...See e.g.: Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 1912, 225 U.S. 282, 292 et seq., 32 S.Ct. 761, 765, 56 L.Ed. 1091. Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U.S. 302, 32 S.Ct. 769, 56 L.Ed. 1099; United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 225 U.S. 306, 320, 32 S.Ct. 817, 819, 56 L.Ed. 1100; Lehigh Valley R.R.......
-
Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission
...Ry. v. United States, supra. Cf. Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U.S. 282, 32 S.Ct. 761, 56 L. Ed. 1091; Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U.S. 302, 32 S.Ct. 769, 56 L.Ed. 1099; The Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258, 264, 44 S.Ct. 317, 68 L.Ed. 667. The same is true of orders merely tentati......
-
The Chicago Junction Case Baltimore Co v. United States
...affirmative or negative.' In Proctor & Gamble v. United States, 225 U. S. 282, 32 Sup. Ct. 761, 56 L. Ed. 1091, Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U. S. 302, 32 Sup. Ct. 769, 56 L. Ed. 1099, and Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. United States, 243 U. S. 412, 37 Sup. Ct. 397, 61 L. Ed. 819, judicial review was r......