MEEKER V. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO.

• Decision Date: 23 February 1915
• Citation: 236 U. S. 434
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company

No. 435

Argued October 13-14, 1914

Decided February 23, 1915

236 U.S. 434

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., ante, P. 412, followed as to construction effect of the amendment to § 16 of the Act to Regulate Commerce and the Act of June 29, 1906, in regard to presentation of claims by shippers against carriers for damages by reason of unreasonable and excessive rates and discrimination, and that the attorney's fee allowed for recovery of the amount awarded can only be for proceeding in court, and not on proceedings before the Commission.

A report of the Interstate Commerce Commission holding a rate excessive and declaring what would be a reasonable rate and a reparation order based thereon were properly admitted as prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained, although made in another and identical proceeding between the same parties, and which the Commission had power in its discretion to consolidate therewith, it also appearing that the carrier did not then object to its admission and the order recited that it was made after a full hearing on, and submission of, the issues in the proceeding in which it was made.

Harmless error constitutes no ground for reversal, and so held as to the presence of irrelevant matter in a report of the Interstate Commerce Commission which matter, while it should not have gone to the jury, did not prejudice respondent.

211 F. 785 reversed.

The facts, which involve the construction of §§ 1, 2 and 16 of the Act to Regulate Commerce and questions of discrimination, are stated in the opinion.

Page 236 U. S. 435

MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a companion case to that just decided, and involves a claim for reparation similar to the second claim in that case, and arising out of the same rate.

In this instance, the shipper was Henry E. Meeker, who had succeeded to the business of Meeker & Company, the shippers in the other case, and the shipments in respect of which reparation is sought were made between April 13, 1908, and April 13, 1910. Otherwise the two claims differ only in amount. A complaint covering this claim was filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission April 13, 1910, before it passed upon the complaint covering the other. In its report of June 8, 1911, upon the earlier complaint, the Commission referred to the later one and said (21 I.C.C. 129, 137):

"As the subject matter of the two complaints is the same, insofar as the reasonableness of the rates is concerned, the disposition of the later case will perhaps be determined by the conclusions reached in this case."

In that report, it found that the rate in question was excessive and unreasonable and what would have been a reasonable rate, and directed a further hearing upon the matter of reparation. Such a hearing was had on both complaints, and, on May 7, 1912, the Commission made a supplemental report, entitled in both cases, in which it referred to its original report and the findings therein, and, after dealing with the reparation sought in the first complaint (Commission's No. 1180), said of the present claim (23 I.C.C. 480, 482):

"On basis of our decision in No. 1180, and upon consideration of the evidence submitted at the hearing of the present case regarding the amount of reparation due complainant, we now find that the rates exacted by defendant for the transportation of anthracite coal from the Wyoming coal region in Pennsylvania to Perth Amboy,

Page 236 U. S. 436

N.J., during the period from April 13, 1908, to April 13, 1910, were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded rates of .40 per gross ton on prepared sizes, .30 on pea, and .15 on buckwheat; that complainant shipped from said point of origin to said destination during the period above set forth, 46,772.02 tons of coal of prepared sizes, 26,972.06 tons of pea coal, and 22,004.09 tons of buckwheat coal; that complainant paid charges thereon, amounting to 6,663.41 at the rates herein found to have been unreasonable, and was damaged to the extent of the difference between the amount which he did pay and 5,849.81, the amount which he would have paid at the rates above found reasonable, and that he is therefore entitled to an award of reparation in the sum of ,813.60, with interest amounting to ,526.53 upon the individual charges comprising said sum from the dates of payment thereof to September 1, 1911, together with interest on said sum of ,813.60 from the 1st day of September, 1911."

"The exhibits showing details respecting the shipments upon which reparation is asked are too extensive to be set forth in this report. But, inasmuch as the accuracy of the figures in said exhibits respecting the shipments made, freight charges paid, and reparation due is conceded of record by defendant, we deem it unnecessary to make detailed findings respecting the numerous shipments involved."

Thereupon the Commission made and entered the following order:

"This case being at issue upon complaint and answers on file, and having been duly heard and...