Turner, Dennis Lowry Lumber Co v. Chicago St Paul Ry Co, 271

• Decision Date: 24 May 1926
• Docket Number: No. 271,271
• Citation: 271 U.S. 259,46 S.Ct. 530,70 L.Ed. 934
• Parties: TURNER, DENNIS & LOWRY LUMBER CO. v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. PAUL RY. CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

271 U.S. 259

46 S.Ct. 530

70 L.Ed. 934

TURNER, DENNIS & LOWRY LUMBER CO.

v CHICAGO, M. & ST. PAUL RY. CO.

No. 271.

Argued April 26, 27, 1926.

Decided May 24, 1926.

Messrs. Rees Turpin, of Kansas City, Mo., and Edward A. Haid, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. O. W. Dynes and J. N. Davis, both of Chicago, Ill., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Turner, Dennis & Lowry Lumber Company brought this action against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company in the federal court for Western Missouri to recover $40 alleged to have been illegally exacted in December, 1921. That sum was collected by the carrier, in accordance with a demurrage tariff duly filed, as a so-called penalty at the rate of $10 a day for the detention of a car containing lumber shipped interstate over the defendant's railroad to the plaintiff at Aberdeen, S. D., and there held at its request for reconsignment. The claim that the charge was illegally exacted rests upon the contentions that imposition of a penalty exceeds the statutory authority conferred upon the Commission; that if the Interstate Commerce Act (Comp. St. § 8563 et seq.), be construed as conferring such authority, the provision is void, because Congress is without power to authorize the Commission to impose it, since prescribing a penalty is a legislative function which cannot be delegated; and that, even if authority to impose a penalty was validly conferred, this particular provision is void, because, by imposing the penalty without notice, there is a denial of due process of law; and that, being imposed only on shippers of lumber, there is a denial of equal protection of the laws.

The tariff in question provides:

'To prevent undue detention of equipment under present emergency, the following additional penalties for detention of equipment will apply:

'On cars loaded with lumber held for reconsignment a storage charge of $10 per car will be assessed for each day or fractional part of a day that a car is held for reconsignment after 48 hours after the hour at which free time begins to run under the demurrage rules.

'These charges will be assessed regardless of whether cars are held on railroad hold tracks or transfer tracts, including consignee's or other private sidings, and will be in addition to any existing demurrage and storage charges.'

The general nature of charges under the Uniform Demurrage Code was considered in Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 243 U. S. 281, 37 S. Ct. 287, 61 L. Ed. 722, and Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Co., 253 U. S. 319, 40 S. Ct. 532, 64 L. Ed. 928. The origin and purpose of the penalty charge here in question were discussed in Edward Hines, etc., Trustees, v. United States, 263 U. S. 143, 44 S. Ct. 72, 68 L. Ed. 216. The nature and scope of the reconsignment privilege are stated in Reconsignment Case, 47 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 590; Reconsignment Case No. 3, 53 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 455; Stetson, Cutler & Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., 91 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 3. This penalty charge was attacked as unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory in American Wholesale Lumber Association v. Director General, 66 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 393, and there held by the Interstate Commerce Commission to be neither unreasonable nor otherwise unlawful.¹

By stipulation in writing a jury was waived, the case was submitted on agreed facts, these were adopted by the court as a special finding of facts, and judgment was entered for the defendant on November 8, 1924, 2 F. (2d) 291. The District Court had jurisdiction under paragraph 8 of section 24 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 991), despite the small amount, because the suit arises under a law regulating commerce. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v Rice, 247 U. S. 201, 38 S. Ct. 429, 62 L. Ed. 1071. Preliminary resort to the Interstate Commerce Commission was unnecessary, because no administrative question is presented. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Merchants' Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285, 42 S. Ct. 477, 66 L. Ed. 943. The case is here on direct writ of error under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1915), prior to its recent amendment, because of the constitutional questions involved.

The efficient use of freight cars is an essential of an adequate transportation system. To secure it, broad powers are conferred upon the Commission. Compare United States v. New River Co., 265 U. S. 533, 44 S. Ct. 610, 68 L. Ed. 1165; Avent v. United States, 266 U. S. 127, 45 S. Ct. 34, 69 L. Ed. 202; United States v. P. Koenig Coal Co. (No. 216, April 12, 1926), 270 U. S. 512, 46 S. Ct. 392, 70 L. Ed. 709. One cause of undue detention is lack of...