Pennsylvania Company v. United States

Citation59 L.Ed. 616,236 U.S. 351,35 S.Ct. 370
Decision Date23 February 1915
Docket NumberNo. 591,591
PartiesPENNSYLVANIA COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, Gordon Fisher, and A. P. Burgwin for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 352-355 intentionally omitted] Mr. William A. Glasgow, Jr., for the Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Railway Company.

Solicitor General Davis and Mr. Blackburn Esterline, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for the United States.

Messrs. Charles W. Needham and Joseph W. Folk for the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

This case comes here by appeal from an order of the district court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, denying a motion for interlocutory injunction against the Interstate Commerce Commission. 214 Fed. 445.

The Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Railway Company, hereinafter called the Rochester Company, filed its petition before the Interstate Commerce Commission against the Pennsylvania Company, averring that in the city of New Castle, Pennsylvania, there was a physical connection between the railroads jointly operated by the Rochester Company and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, and the terminal facilities of the Pennsylvania Company, at which joint traffic could be properly exchanged, and is exchanged between the railroad operated by the Rochester Company and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, so that traffic on the lines owned and operated by the Rochester Company, and from manufactories and industries reached by the terminal lines of said company in the city of New Castle, can be delivered to the Pennsylvania Company, and thus transported to its destination; that there are no joint routes or through rates in effect between the Rochester Company and the Pennsylvania Company by which traffic to and from industries upon the terminal line of the Pennsylvania Company in or near the city of New Castle may be carried, and although complainant had frequently requested the Pennsylvania Company to join in establishing the same, the Pennsylvania Company failed and neglected so to do; that the Rochester Company, upon interstate traffic carried by it to the point of physical connection with the road of the Pennsylvania Company, which traffic is destined to manufactories or industries upon the lines of the Pennsylvania Company in or near the city of New Castle, is ready and willing, and had offered, to pay the Pennsylvania Company its lawful and proper charges for receiving, carrying, and delivering such traffic, which charges it makes to other persons or companies for like services that the action of the Pennsylvania Company in declining to receive, carry, and deliver to the point of physical connection aforesaid, interstate traffic offered by the Rochester Company, subjects said company and shippers of interstate traffic over its lines, destined to the manufactories and industries upon the line of the said Pennsylvania Company, to an undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, and is in violation of § 3 of the act to regulate commerce, [24 Stat. at L. 380, chap. 104, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8565], in that it constitutes a failure to afford reasonable, proper, and equal facilities to complainant with those afforded to other persons for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of property to and from their several lines; that there are no other through routes and joint rates in effect to which the Rochester Company and Pennsylvania Company are parties for the through transportation of interstate traffic carried by the Rochester Company, destined to the manufactories and industries on the lines of the Pennsylvania Company, in or near said city, nor are there any through routes or joint rates in effect between the companies for interstate traffic originating at the manufactories and industries on the lines of the Pennsylvania Company in or near New Castle, destined to points upon the line of the Rochester Company, or points which are reached by its connections; and that the failure and refusal of the Pennsylvania Company is forbidden by § 15 of the act to regulate commerce. The Rochester Company prayed for an order commanding the Pennsylvania Company to cease and desist from such violations of the act to regulate commerce, and for such orders as might be deemed necessary, and that the Commission should establish through routes and joint rates on articles of merchandise tendered to the Pennsylvania Company at the point of physical connection above set forth for delivery on the lines of defendant's railroad, in or near the said city of New Castle, and from the industries and manufactories on the lines of the above-named railroad in or near the city of New Castle to points on the line of the Rochester Company or its connections; said joint rates so established to be the maximum to be charged, and that the Commission prescribe a division of the same and the terms upon which such through route can be operated.

The Commission made no order establishing through routes and joint rates, but held that inasmuch as the Pennsylvania Company's refusal to accept from and move to the Rochester Company carload lots of freight within the switching limits of New Castle, while performing the service in connection with the said other three carriers within said switching limits, was a discrimination, the same was undue, unreasonable, and in violation of the act to regulate commerce. The Commission ordered that the Pennsylvania Company be required, on or before March 15th, 1914, to cease and desist from such undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage as against the Rochester Company, and required the Pennsylvania Company to establish and maintain rates, regulations, and practices which would prevent and avoid the aforesaid undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage for a period of two years. Subsequently orders were made, making the order effective from a later date, to wit, April 15th, 1914.

From the facts found by the Commission it appears that New Castle is a manufacturing city of much importance, having a population of about forty thousand people, situated near the center of the iron, steel, and ore industries of the Mahoning and Shenango valleys. The switching limits of New Castle in their greatest length are about 4 miles in extent, and included therein are about 100 industries. The Pennsylvania Railroad, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, Erie Railroad, and the Rochester Railroad all reach and serve New Castle by their several lines of railroad. Each of the four roads has switching connections with the Pennsylvania Company, with interchange tracks and terminals within the switching limits. The Rochester road operates a line of railroad from Rochester and Buffalo, in the state of New York, to New Castle and Pittsburgh, in the state of Pennsylvania. It reaches New Castle from the town of Butler, Pennsylvania, over the rails of the Allegheny & Western Railroad, which are now jointly used by the Rochester Company and the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, under a contract between them. The terminal facilities of the Pennsylvania Company at New Castle consist of depots, freight stations, yards, team tracks, and side tracks, together with spur tracks reaching 26 industries within the switching limits. Within the switching limits there are two points of connection with the lines of the Pennsylvania Company, and those jointly used by the Baltimore & Ohio and the Rochester road. One of these points is at Moravia street, near the center of the city, where the Pennsylvania Company has interchange yards with a capacity for 250 cars. This point is about 1,000 feet from the freight station of the Rochester road, where the latter road has two unloading tracks of ten cars' capacity each and a team track of twelve cars' capacity. The second point of connection is near the outer yards of the Pennsylvania Company, where there are ample facilities for interchange of traffic.

The Pennsylvania Company refuses all interchange of carload freight, whether incoming or outgoing, with the Rochester road within the switching limits of New Castle, but it does conduct such interchange with the Erie, the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie, and the Baltimore & Ohio roads. As to these roads the Pennsylvania Company has published its tariffs, and offers to receive, transport, and deliver to and from the lines of these three carriers carload shipments to and from about 128 industries within the switching limits and immediate vicinity of New Castle, at a charge of $2 per car within the limits and a varying charge with a maximum of $5 per car without the limits. The industries on the tracks of the Pennsylvania Company within the switching limits, which receive carload freight from the Rochester road, or which may desire to ship such freight over the Rochester road, to points beyond New Castle, must dray their traffic to and from the depot or team track of the Rochester Company. Representatives of such industries testified as to the disadvantage to them resulting from the refusal of the Pennsylvania Company to perform switching service on traffic moving over the line of the Rochester Company.

The Commission found this practice to be an undue and unreasonable discrimination against the Rochester Company, and made an order requiring the Pennsylvania Company to desist therefrom. Commissioner Harlan, dissenting, was disposed to agree to an order fixing reasonable joint through rates for the use of the terminals of the Pennsylvania Company and over the rails of the Rochester Company, but disagreed with the order on the grounds made. The Pennsylvania Company then filed the bill in this case in the district court of the United States for the western district of Pennsylvania, and moved for a preliminary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • City and County of San Francisco v. Western Air Lines, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1962
    ...45, 42 L.Ed. 414; Barringer & Co. v. United States (1943) 319 U.S. 1, 6, 63 S.Ct. 967, 87 L.Ed. 1171; Pennsylvania Co. v. United States (1915) 236 U.S. 351, 361, 35 S.Ct. 370, 59 L.Ed. 616; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co., supra, 181 U.S. 92, 103, 21 S.Ct. 561, 45 L.Ed. 7......
  • Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Mobile & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 7, 1929
    ...... . . Suit by. the Mobile & Ohio Railroad, Company and another against the. Mississippi Railroad Commission and others, to ...C. L. 628,. 629; 4 R. C. L. 630; 4 R. C. L. 653; Pennsylvania Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 351, 59 L.Ed. 616; L. & N. R. Co. v. ......
  • State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 4, 1925
    ...... directed to the Jacksonville Terminal Company. . . Peremptory. writ denied. . . Ellis,. ... writ states an unjust discrimination as to passengers found. by the railroad ... in its favor. See Detroit United Ry. v. People of State. of Michigan, 242 U.S. 238, 37 S.Ct. 87, 61 L.Ed. ...Powell, 29. Fla. 1, 10 So. 688, 15 L. R. A. 42; Pennsylvania Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 351, 35 S.Ct. 370, 59 L.Ed. 616;. ......
  • State v. Public Service Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 24, 1921
    ...aside by the courts, as it is only the exercise of an authority which the law vests in the commission." Penn. Co. v. U. S., 236 U. S. loc. cit. 361, 35 Sup. Ct. 373, 59 L. Ed. 616. With respect to the function of a court in reviewing an administrative order, the Court of Appeals of Maryland......
  • 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