Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. American Hay Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1914
• Docket Number: 91.
• Citation: 219 F. 539
• Parties: LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. v. AMERICAN HAY CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

219 F. 539

LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. v. AMERICAN HAY CO.

No. 91.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 15, 1914

The action was brought by the American Hay Company under section 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104 24 Stat. 384 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 8584)) to recover damages for a discrimination by the railroad company in that certain tariff privileges were accorded at Sayre, Pa., a division terminal which were not accorded at Townley, N.J., where plaintiff had a hay shed at which trains stopped. The alleged discrimination consisted in this that there was accorded the right to reconsign hay at Sayre free of charge, provided such reconsignment was made within 24 hours after the actual time of arrival of the cars, otherwise a charge of $2 per car was imposed, where, as at Townley, during the same period plaintiff was charged $2 a car, whether or not such reconsignment was made within 24 hours. It was also charged before the Commission that the charge of $2 was excessive. The action was based on a report of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

S. C Pratt, of New York City, for plaintiff in error.

H. Goldmark, of New York City, for defendant in error.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The defendant contends that the Commission had no authority to award damages because such award was on the Commission's own initiative; section 13 providing that, where it proceeds with an inquiry instituted on its own motion, it has no power to make or enforce any order for the payment of money.

The complaint to the Commission was filed January 12, 1910. Manifestly it dealt only with the transactions prior to that date-- as to which the Commission found in favor of the railroad, holding that $2 was a reasonable charge, and that there had been no discrimination down to that date. The discrimination found against the railroad, and for which damages were assessed against it, was a discrimination between June, 1910, and December, 1910. If inquiry touching transactions in this period had been made by the Commission solely on its own motion, there might be some force in the point raised. But we see no ground for holding that it was not in the power of the Commission to allow a complaint to be amended or supplemented by incorporating transactions of a period later than its date of filing, especially when no objection to such amendment is interposed. There is no evidence that any such objection was raised; on the contrary, it is stated and not contradicted that both sides took testimony as to the later period. If that is so, the Commission might surely make findings and orders about the later period, as fully as if a new complaint had been filed to cover it.

The next contention is that there are no findings of fact. No formal marked and numbered set of findings is required. Findings are findings just as well when imbedded in the colloquial statements of an opinion. From the opinion it is apparent that there is found:

(1) Since October 1, 1906, and until December 1, 1910, a tariff charge was made at Townley of $2 per car for inspection, grading and reconsignment.

(2) Since May 1, 1909, and until June 17, 1910, a tariff charge was made at Sayre of $2 for similar purposes, with proviso for no charge provided order for diverting cars should be filed immediately upon or prior to arrival.

(3) Since June 17, 1910, until decision (June, 1911), there was in force a change in the Sayre tariff which relieved of payment of the $2 when orders for reconsignment were given within 24 hours after...