Jersey City v. United States
| Decision Date | 15 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 193. |
| Citation | 101 F. Supp. 702 |
| Parties | JERSEY CITY v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Francis K. Fahy, Jersey City, for plaintiff.
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.
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 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 the section does not authorize such an intervenor itself to bring suit in such a case. Moffat Tunnel League v. United States, 1933, 289 U.S. 113, 53 S.Ct. 543, 77 L.Ed. 1069. It would thus appear that the complaint must be dismissed because the plaintiff is without standing to prosecute it. However that may be, we are clear that the complaint must in any event be dismissed on its merits.
The Interstate Commerce Commission is empowered by law to prescribe such rates for interstate carriers as it may find to be just and reasonable....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina Natural Gas Corp. v. United States
...F. Ry. Co. v. United 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 Co......
-
Bergen County v. Port of New York Authority
...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......
-
Utah Citizens Rate Association v. United States
...was recognized 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 an......
-
Board of Public Utility Com'rs of NJ v. United States
...have not been clearly revealed. Compare City of New York v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y. 1921, 272 F. 768, with Jersey City v. United States, D.C.N.J.1950, 101 F.Supp. 702. Section 2323, 28 U.S.C., does provide that "any party or parties in interest to the proceeding before the Commission, i......