Jersey City v. United States, Civ. No. 193.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtMARIS, Circuit , and SMITH and MEANEY
Citation101 F. Supp. 702
PartiesJERSEY CITY v. UNITED STATES et al.
Docket NumberCiv. No. 193.
Decision Date15 March 1950

101 F. Supp. 702

JERSEY CITY
v.
UNITED STATES et al.

Civ. No. 193.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

March 15, 1950.


Francis K. Fahy, Jersey City, for plaintiff.

William A. Roberts, Washington, D. C., for Hudson & Manhattan R. Co.

Edward M. Reidy, Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.

William D. McFarlane, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Before MARIS, Circuit Judge, and SMITH and MEANEY, District Judges.

MARIS, Circuit Judge.

The City of Jersey City seeks in this action an injunction enjoining the operation of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission entered March 6, 1950 granting the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company an increase of its local interstate fares to 15 cents. The facts are fully set forth in the report of the Commission, 277 I.C.C. 313, and need not be repeated here.

We are met at the outset by the question whether the City of Jersey City has standing to maintain the suit. The suit is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1336. Neither that section nor its predecessor Section 24(28) of the Judicial Code of 1911 specifies the classes of persons who may sue to set aside an order of the Commission. But it is a recognized principle that the judicial power may not ordinarily be invoked by one whose own rights are not affected. Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 1900, 179 U.S. 405, 21 S.Ct. 206, 45 L.Ed. 252; Ex parte Levitt, 1937, 302 U.S. 633, 58 S.Ct. 1, 82 L.Ed. 493. Here the plaintiff has not shown that any of its rights as a municipal corporation will be adversely affected by the Commission's order. It seeks rather to protect the interests of its citizens. But it has no standing to do so for the Commission represents the public, including those members of the public residing in Jersey City. United States v. Merchants & Manufacturers' Traffic Association, 1916, 242 U.S. 178, 188, 37 S.Ct. 24, 61 L.Ed. 233; Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1922, 258 U.S. 158, 42 S.Ct. 261, 66 L.Ed. 531.

The fact that the city appeared and actively participated in the proceedings before the Commission does not give it standing

101 F. Supp. 703
to bring this suit. Pittsburgh & West Virginia Railway Company v. United States, 1930, 281 U.S. 479, 50 S.Ct. 378, 74 L.Ed. 980. Nor does 28 U.S.C. § 2323 have that effect. Under that section a community, such as Jersey City, may intervene, if it is interested, in a suit brought by a proper party to set aside an order of the Commission. But...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Bergen County v. Port of New York Authority, No. A--91
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 9 Mayo 1960
    ...Commerce Commission rather than a city represents the public including the residents of the municipality. Jersey City v. United States, 101 F.Supp. 702 (D.C.D.N.J.1950); see County Board of Arlington County, Virginia v. United States, 101 F.Supp. 328, 332 (D.C.E.D.Va.1951). To the same effe......
  • North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 2360.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • 27 Noviembre 1961
    ...States, E.D.Mo., 130 F.Supp. 76, 78, aff'd mem., 350 U.S. 892, 76 S.Ct. 152, 100 L.Ed. 785; Jersey City v. United States, D.C.N.J., 101 F. Supp. 702, 703; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, W.D.Pa., 40 F.2d 921, 925. And, on status, see E. Brooke Matlack, Inc. and Coastal Tank Lines, Inc......
  • Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States, Civ. No. C-58-60.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • 6 Enero 1961
    ...on the part of shippers or others directly affected by the orders of the Commission. Compare Jersey City v. United States, D.C.N.J.1950, 101 F. Supp. 702, pressed upon us by the defendants, where Judge Maris, for the Court, pointed out that the plaintiff had not shown that any of its rights......
  • Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie, Civ. A. No. 87-65.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 28 Diciembre 1965
    ...him, and so operates as to deprive him of rights protected by the Federal Constitution." See also Jersey City v. United States, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 702, (1950), an opinion by Judge Maris in a Three-Judge-Court case, where he "But it is a recognized principle that the judicial power may not or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Bergen County v. Port of New York Authority, No. A--91
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 9 Mayo 1960
    ...Commerce Commission rather than a city represents the public including the residents of the municipality. Jersey City v. United States, 101 F.Supp. 702 (D.C.D.N.J.1950); see County Board of Arlington County, Virginia v. United States, 101 F.Supp. 328, 332 (D.C.E.D.Va.1951). To the same effe......
  • North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United States, Civ. A. No. 2360.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • 27 Noviembre 1961
    ...States, E.D.Mo., 130 F.Supp. 76, 78, aff'd mem., 350 U.S. 892, 76 S.Ct. 152, 100 L.Ed. 785; Jersey City v. United States, D.C.N.J., 101 F. Supp. 702, 703; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, W.D.Pa., 40 F.2d 921, 925. And, on status, see E. Brooke Matlack, Inc. and Coastal Tank Lines, Inc......
  • Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States, Civ. No. C-58-60.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • 6 Enero 1961
    ...on the part of shippers or others directly affected by the orders of the Commission. Compare Jersey City v. United States, D.C.N.J.1950, 101 F. Supp. 702, pressed upon us by the defendants, where Judge Maris, for the Court, pointed out that the plaintiff had not shown that any of its rights......
  • Dispatch, Inc. v. City of Erie, Civ. A. No. 87-65.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 28 Diciembre 1965
    ...him, and so operates as to deprive him of rights protected by the Federal Constitution." See also Jersey City v. United States, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 702, (1950), an opinion by Judge Maris in a Three-Judge-Court case, where he "But it is a recognized principle that the judicial power may not or......
  • 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