State of New York v. United States Lehigh Valley Co, No. 283

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtTAFT
Citation66 L.Ed. 385,42 S.Ct. 239,257 U.S. 591
Docket NumberNo. 283
Decision Date27 February 1922
PartiesSTATE OF NEW YORK et al. v. UNITED STATES et al., Interstate Commerce Commission (LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. et al., Interveners)

257 U.S. 591
42 S.Ct. 239
66 L.Ed. 385
STATE OF NEW YORK et al.

v.

UNITED STATES et al., Interstate Commerce Commission (LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. et al., Interveners).

No. 283.
Argued Oct. 19 and 20, 1921.
Decided Feb. 27, 1922.

Page 592

Mr. Edward G. Griffin, of Albany, N. Y., for appellants.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 592-597 intentionally omitted]

Page 597

Messrs. Walter C. Noyes, of New York City, Alfred P. Thom, of Washington, D. C., Richard W. Barrett and George F. Brownell, both of New York City, P. J. Farrell, of Washington, D. C., William S. Jenney and C. L. Andrus, both of New York City, for appellees Railroads.

Mr. John E. Benton, of Washington, D. C., for 45 States, amici curiae.

Mr. Patrick J. Farrell, of Washington, D. C., for Interstate Commerce Commission.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a bill in equity against the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission and others brought by the State of New York and its Attorney General to annuland enjoin the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission requiring the interstate railroads operating in intrastate commerce in the State of New York to charge in such commerce 3.6 cents a mile for all passengers, 20 per cent. increase over the then excess baggage rates to intrastate passengers, a surcharge of 50 per cent. of the charges for space in sleeping cars

Page 598

to such passengers, and 20 per cent. increase in intrastate rates on milk, all for the purpose of bringing the intrastate rates to the level of the interstate rates previously fixed by the Commission. The bill was filed under, and by virtue of, the statute repealing the Commerce Court Act and conferring jurisdiction on the District Court. 38 Stat. 219. The application for an interlocutory injunction was heard by a Circuit Judge and two District Judges. Then a final hearing was had, and the court entered a final decree dismissing the complaint from which this appeal has been taken. The railroad companies affected by the order were on their petition permitted to intervene, and are here as appellees.

It appears from the record that in the proceeding by the Interstate Commerce Commission to fix interstate commerce rates to comply with the requirements of section 15a of the Interstate Commerce Act, as added by section 422 of the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 488—a proceeding known as Ex parte 74, Increased Rates, 58 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 220—the Commission, after conference with a committee representing all the state commerce commissions ana authorities authorized the group of intrastate railroads, of which the railroads operating in New York were a part, to raise their freight rates 40 per cent., their passenger rates and excess baggage charges 20 per cent., and to add a surcharge of 50 per cent. for passengers on sleeping cars. As soon as the order in Ex parte 74 was made, the railroads concerned applied to the Public Service Commission of the State of New York for similar increases in intrastate rates. That Commission granted the increase in freight rates, but denied it as to milk rates and passenger fares. The passenger intrastate fares were 3 cents a mile under the order of the President during the war control, but when that should become ineffective, a statute of New York fixing passenger fares on the New York Central Railroad from albany to Buffalo at two

Page 599

cents a mile would come into force and operation. As soon as the state commission made its ruling, the railroads applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission under section 13 of the act of which proceeding notice was given to the state of New York, the Attorney General and the Public Service Commission, all of whom appeared, for an order directing the railroads to put intrastate passenger fares, excess baggage charges, sleeping car surtaxes and milk rates on the same level with interstate rates. Proof was offered by the railways to show that conditions of operation in state and interstate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
76 practice notes
  • Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States, No. 64-64-Civ. J.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • June 8, 1966
    ...to be an aid in the accomplishment of the purposes in view in the enactment of Transportation Act, 1920. See New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 601 42 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed. 385; Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S. 153, 165 46 S.Ct. 452, 70 L.Ed. 878. Exercising this paramount power, the......
  • Island Airlines, Inc., Application of, No. 4339
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • June 21, 1963
    ...encroachment. Railroad Comm'n v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 257 U.S. 563, 42 S.Ct. 232, 66 L.Ed. 371, and New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 42 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed. 385, together with the predecessor Shreveport case (Houston, E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342......
  • Ruark v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 37, Nos. 43-48.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 25, 1929
    ...v. Chi., etc., R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 578-580, 42 S. Ct. 232, 66 L. Ed. 371, 379, 380, 22 A. L. R. 1086; New York v. United States, 257 U. S. 591, 42 S. Ct. 239, 66 L. Ed. 385. Another illustration is found in the similar provisions incorporated in the Public Service Commission Act of Maryl......
  • Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Same 12 8212 17, 1938, Nos. 19
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1938
    ...Railroad Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.,257 U.S. 563, 42 S.Ct. 232, 66 L.Ed. 371, 22 A.L.R. 1086; New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 42 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed. 385. See, also, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, 37—41, 57 S.Ct.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
76 cases
  • Florida East Coast Railway Company v. United States, No. 64-64-Civ. J.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • June 8, 1966
    ...to be an aid in the accomplishment of the purposes in view in the enactment of Transportation Act, 1920. See New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 601 42 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed. 385; Colorado v. United States, 271 U.S. 153, 165 46 S.Ct. 452, 70 L.Ed. 878. Exercising this paramount power, the......
  • Island Airlines, Inc., Application of, No. 4339
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Hawai'i
    • June 21, 1963
    ...encroachment. Railroad Comm'n v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co., 257 U.S. 563, 42 S.Ct. 232, 66 L.Ed. 371, and New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 42 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed. 385, together with the predecessor Shreveport case (Houston, E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342......
  • Ruark v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 37, Nos. 43-48.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 25, 1929
    ...v. Chi., etc., R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 578-580, 42 S. Ct. 232, 66 L. Ed. 371, 379, 380, 22 A. L. R. 1086; New York v. United States, 257 U. S. 591, 42 S. Ct. 239, 66 L. Ed. 385. Another illustration is found in the similar provisions incorporated in the Public Service Commission Act of Maryl......
  • Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Same 12 8212 17, 1938, Nos. 19
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1938
    ...Railroad Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co.,257 U.S. 563, 42 S.Ct. 232, 66 L.Ed. 371, 22 A.L.R. 1086; New York v. United States, 257 U.S. 591, 42 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed. 385. See, also, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, 37—41, 57 S.Ct.......
  • 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