Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, 10496.
| Court | United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Missouri) |
| Citation | 4 F. Supp. 745 |
| Docket Number | No. 10496.,10496. |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO. v. UNITED STATES et al. (ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al., Interveners). |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1933 |
4 F. Supp. 745
MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO.
v.
UNITED STATES et al. (ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al., Interveners).
No. 10496.
District Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.
October 13, 1933.
James R. Van Slyke, Samuel A. Mitchell, and H. L. Harvey, all of St. Louis, Mo. (Thompson, Mitchell, Thompson & Young, of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for petitioner.
Elmer B. Collins, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (Harold M. Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Louis H. Breuer, U. S. Atty., of Rolla, Mo., on the brief), for the United States.
H. L. Underwood, of Washington, D. C. (Daniel W. Knowlton, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for Interstate Commerce Commission.
Horace L. Walker, of Washington, D. C., and Elmer A. Smith, of Chicago, Ill., for interveners.
SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and FARIS and DAVIS, District Judges.
While the application of the petitioner was for a preliminary injunction, it was agreed by all parties that the suit should be finally determined by the court upon the record made at the hearing.
The suit is brought by the petitioner against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission to enjoin orders of the Commission issued on July 3, 1933, and amended July 18, 1933, in a proceeding entitled "Investigation & Suspension Docket No. 3814, Sugar from Gulf and South Atlantic
The facts out of which this controversy arises are, in substance, these:
The petitioner operates as a common carrier by water between New Orleans, La., and northern points on the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, including St. Louis and Cincinnati. It has a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commission, and it has joined with rail carriers in establishing through routes and joint rates. Its port to port rates are, of course, not subject to regulation by the Commission.
Due to the difference in rates charged by the petitioner and other barge lines and those formerly charged by the competing rail carriers, the business of transporting refined sugar from points adjacent to the lower Mississippi river was diverted from the rail carriers. In order to recover this business the competing rail carriers jointly proposed new schedules of reduced rates on sugar from New Orleans to northern points, and, in accordance with section 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA § 6), filed with the Commission schedules of such rates to become effective October 1, 1932. These schedules established two different sets of rates, one based upon a minimum weight of 60,000 pounds per car, and the other based upon a minimum weight of 80,000 pounds per car. To illustrate the effect of the proposed change, the old rate to Chicago from New Orleans was 56 cents a hundred pounds, and under the proposed new rates the charge was 39 cents a hundred pounds on the lesser minimum per car, and 30 cents a hundred pounds on the greater.
The Interstate Commerce Commission, under section 15 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 USCA § 15 (7)), suspended these rates pending investigation. Protests against the proposed rates were filed by the petitioner and others. After a full hearing and investigation the Commission issued its orders of July 3, 1933, and its amended orders of July 18, 1933. Thereby the Commission approved the proposed rates in so far as they were based upon the 60,000 pound minimum, but did not approve the rates based upon the 80,000 pound minimum, which it found were lower than the necessities of the situation required, and ordered a cancellation of the schedules to that extent. It observed, however, that the circumstances justified a rate on the 80,000 pound minimum four cents higher than that proposed by the railroads, and the railroads were invited to publish and to make effective such rates. Thereupon the railroads did publish and file changed schedules in accordance with the suggestion of the Commission, and such rates became effective.
The petitioner filed with the Commission a motion for a rehearing upon the grounds of changed economic conditions and the alleged failure of the Commission to give effect to the congressional mandate of section 500 of the Transportation Act of 1920 (U. S. C., title 49, § 142 49 USCA § 142), which is directed toward the encouragement of water transportation. This motion was denied. This suit to enjoin the enforcement of the orders in so far as they affect rates from New Orleans followed. It is brought under U. S. C., title 28, § 41 (28), 28 USCA § 41 (28), and is directed against the Commission and the United States in accordance with the provisions of U. S. C., title 28, § 46, 28 USCA § 46.
The petitioner complains of the Commission's orders for the following reasons:
(1) The Commission ignored the policy of Congress as stated in the Transportation Act.
(2) Its decision is unsupported by the evidence and by its findings.
(3) The Commission by its orders has permitted a combination in restraint of trade, which is contrary to the spirit of the antitrust laws.
(4) The proposed rates will result in irreparable injury and damage to the petitioner.
(5) The orders are arbitrary, discriminatory,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of North Carolina v. United States, Civil Action No. 189.
...88 F.2d 780, 784, certiorari denied 300 U.S. 684, 57 S. Ct. 754, 81 L.Ed. 886; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 745, 748; Union Stock Yards Co. v. United States, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 864, 873; American Commission Co. v. United States, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 965, 972;......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. United States, Civ. No. 51C 1211.
...88 F.2d 780, 784, certiorari denied 300 U.S. 684, 57 S. Ct. 754, 81 L.Ed. 886; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, D.C., 4 F. Supp. 745, 748; Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha v. United States, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 864, 873; American Commission Co. v. United States, D.C., 11 F.Supp.......
-
Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co v. United States, 807
...that the findings of the report were conclusive as to the facts, and that they were sufficient on their face to uphold the lowered rates. 4 F.Supp. 745. An appeal to this court followed. Judicial Code, § 210, 28 U.S.C. § 47a (28 USCA § 47a). The settled rule is that the findings of the Comm......
-
SUBURBAN TRANSIT CORPORATION v. United States, Civ. A. No. 794-62.
...398 88 F.2d 780, 784, cert. denied, 300 U.S. 684 57 S.Ct. 754, 81 L.Ed. 886; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, D.C. 4 F.Supp. 745, 748; Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha v. United States, D.C. 9 F.Supp. 864, 873; American Commission Co. v. United States, D.C. 11 F.Supp. 965, ......
-
State of North Carolina v. United States, Civil Action No. 189.
...88 F.2d 780, 784, certiorari denied 300 U.S. 684, 57 S. Ct. 754, 81 L.Ed. 886; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, D.C., 4 F.Supp. 745, 748; Union Stock Yards Co. v. United States, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 864, 873; American Commission Co. v. United States, D.C., 11 F.Supp. 965, 972;......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. United States, Civ. No. 51C 1211.
...88 F.2d 780, 784, certiorari denied 300 U.S. 684, 57 S. Ct. 754, 81 L.Ed. 886; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, D.C., 4 F. Supp. 745, 748; Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha v. United States, D.C., 9 F.Supp. 864, 873; American Commission Co. v. United States, D.C., 11 F.Supp.......
-
Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co v. United States, 807
...that the findings of the report were conclusive as to the facts, and that they were sufficient on their face to uphold the lowered rates. 4 F.Supp. 745. An appeal to this court followed. Judicial Code, § 210, 28 U.S.C. § 47a (28 USCA § 47a). The settled rule is that the findings of the Comm......
-
SUBURBAN TRANSIT CORPORATION v. United States, Civ. A. No. 794-62.
...398 88 F.2d 780, 784, cert. denied, 300 U.S. 684 57 S.Ct. 754, 81 L.Ed. 886; Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co. v. United States, D.C. 4 F.Supp. 745, 748; Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha v. United States, D.C. 9 F.Supp. 864, 873; American Commission Co. v. United States, D.C. 11 F.Supp. 965, ......