Looney v. Eastern Texas Co, No. 756

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCLARKE
Citation247 U.S. 214,38 S.Ct. 460,62 L.Ed. 1084
PartiesLOONEY, Atty. Gen., et al. v. EASTERN TEXAS R. CO. et al
Docket NumberNo. 756
Decision Date20 May 1918

247 U.S. 214
38 S.Ct. 460
62 L.Ed. 1084
LOONEY, Atty. Gen., et al.

v.

EASTERN TEXAS R. CO. et al.

No. 756.
Argued April 16 and 17, 1918.
Decided May 20, 1918.

Mr. Luther Nickels, of Austin, Tex., for appellant.

Page 215

Mr. J. W. Terry, of Galveston, Tex., for appellees.

Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents for decision a motion by appellees to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and it involves the consideration of the latest chapter in a litigation which was commenced in 1911, when the Railroad Commission o Louisiana filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a complaint charging various railroad companies with maintaining unreasonable rates on traffic from Shreveport, Louisiana, to points in Texas, and with maintaining rates which unjustly discriminated in favor of traffic moving wholly within the state of Texas as against that between Louisiana and Texas.

A hearing resulted in an order by the Commission, which was assailed by the railroad companies as invalid, but which this court sustained in Houston, East & West Texas Ry. Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 342, 34 Sup. Ct. 833. 58 L. Ed. 1341, in a decision rendered in 1913, which has come to be widely referred to as the 'Shreveport case.'

After this decision there were further proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, hwich resulted, on July 7, 1916, in the order out of which this litigation arose, which required many railroad companies, among other things,

'To establish, on or before November 1, 1916, * * * and thereafter to maintain and apply to transportation of property between Shreveport, Louisiana, and points in the State of Texas, class rates and rates on the above named (in the order) commodities not in excess of those contemporaneously applied by them for the transportation of like property for like distances between points in the State of Texas, except in those instances where the rates between Texas points have been depressed

Page 216

by reason of water competition along the Gulf of Mexico, or waters contiguous thereto.'

Immediately after this order was entered the Attorney General of Texas declared that it was void and that he would institute suits under the Texas laws for damages and penalties against any carrier which should comply with it. Thereupon the carriers filed a bill in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, in which they averred the validity of the order, the necessity for their obeying it, their intention to obey it, the threat of suits by the Attorney General, and, attaching a copy of the tariff they had compiled to comply with the order (designated as Texas Lines Tariff 2-B), they prayed for an injunction restraining the Attorney General from executing the threat which he had made. A temporary restraining order was granted and on November 1, 1916, the tariffs were duly filed.

Issue was joined on this bill, and elaborate pleadings were filed by both parties, such that there can be no doubt that the Attorney General challenged the validity of the order as arbitrary, unreasonable, unsupported by the evidence and void, and especially as being inapplicable, in the terms and for want of power, to the western part of Texas, which, for rate-making purposes, is designated 'differential territory.'

An application for a temporary injunction, on the issues thus joined, was heard on April 4, 1917, by three judges, and resulted in an order as prayed for. The court, in arriving at its announced conclusion, expressly disclaimed passing on the merits of the controversy, and granted the injunction because, as is variously stated in the opinions rendered, it deemed it necessary to prevent a multiplicity of destructive suits against the carriers; because the order of the Commission could not be held void on a preliminary hearing; and because the Texas rate situation involved was at the time in process of re-

Page 217

-examination by the Interstate Commerce Commission. No appeal was taken from this order.

Between the time of the filing of the bill for the injunction and the hearing on April 4th, the Interstate Commerce Commission had entered two orders in the proceeding in which the order of July 7, 1916, had been granted, one that the tariff filed by the carriers on November 1st,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 practice notes
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., No. 34073.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1936
    ...198 Fed. 500; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L. Ed. 257; State v. Julow, 31 S.W. 782, 129 Mo. 174; Looney v. Eastern Texas Ry. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 62 L. Ed. 1084; St. Louis-S.F. Railroad Co. v. McElvain, 253 Fed. 123; Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 67 L. Ed. 226; Sherwin Natl.......
  • Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Kelby, No. 163.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 7, 1943
    ...All Continent Co., 301 U.S. 278, 57 S.Ct. 705, 81 L.Ed. 1085. 23 Thus it is difficult to perceive a res in Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 38 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed. 1084; to be sure, there the injunction was not permanent; but no more is the order 24 See, e. g., Thompson v. Termi......
  • Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Revere, Civ. A. No. 9952.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • September 30, 1960
    ...an exception. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175, 183, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205; Looney v. Eastern Texas R. R. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 221, 38 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed. 1084; State of Missouri v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R., 241 U.S. 533, 542-543, 36 S.Ct. 715, 60 L.Ed. 1148;......
  • Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co, IOWA-WISCONSIN
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1941
    ...With this exception, it is expressly forbidden by law.' 96 U.S. at page 341, 24 L.Ed. 644.8 Page 138 Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 38 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed. 1084, was not a 'relitigation' case. The Texas federal district court, in a suit brought by various carriers, granted a p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
53 cases
  • State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Mo. Utilities Co., No. 34073.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 8, 1936
    ...198 Fed. 500; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L. Ed. 257; State v. Julow, 31 S.W. 782, 129 Mo. 174; Looney v. Eastern Texas Ry. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 62 L. Ed. 1084; St. Louis-S.F. Railroad Co. v. McElvain, 253 Fed. 123; Kline v. Burke Const. Co., 260 U.S. 226, 67 L. Ed. 226; Sherwin Natl.......
  • Brooklyn Trust Co. v. Kelby, No. 163.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • June 7, 1943
    ...All Continent Co., 301 U.S. 278, 57 S.Ct. 705, 81 L.Ed. 1085. 23 Thus it is difficult to perceive a res in Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 38 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed. 1084; to be sure, there the injunction was not permanent; but no more is the order 24 See, e. g., Thompson v. Termi......
  • Pan American Fire & Casualty Company v. Revere, Civ. A. No. 9952.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • September 30, 1960
    ...an exception. See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor, 254 U.S. 175, 183, 41 S.Ct. 93, 65 L.Ed. 205; Looney v. Eastern Texas R. R. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 221, 38 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed. 1084; State of Missouri v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R., 241 U.S. 533, 542-543, 36 S.Ct. 715, 60 L.Ed. 1148;......
  • Toucey v. New York Life Ins Co Phoenix Finance Corporation v. Bridge Co, IOWA-WISCONSIN
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1941
    ...With this exception, it is expressly forbidden by law.' 96 U.S. at page 341, 24 L.Ed. 644.8 Page 138 Looney v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 247 U.S. 214, 38 S.Ct. 460, 62 L.Ed. 1084, was not a 'relitigation' case. The Texas federal district court, in a suit brought by various carriers, granted a p......
  • 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