United States of America v. Union Stock Yard Transit Company of Chicago No 621 Chicago Junction Railway Company v. United States of America No 622, Nos. 621 and 622
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Day |
| Citation | 33 S.Ct. 83,57 L.Ed. 226,226 U.S. 286 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 621 and 622 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1912 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, upon the Application of the Attorney General, at the Request of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Appt., v. UNION STOCK YARD & TRANSIT COMPANY OF CHICAGO et al. NO 621. CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, upon the Application of the Attorney General, at the Request of the Interstate Commerce Commission. NO 622 |
v.
UNION STOCK YARD & TRANSIT COMPANY OF CHICAGO et al. NO 621. CHICAGO JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, upon the Application of the Attorney General, at the Request of the Interstate Commerce Commission. NO 622.
Page 287
Assistant Attorney General Adkins and Mr. William E. Lamb, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, for appellant in No. 621, and appellee in No. 622.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 287-290 intentionally omitted]
Page 290
Mr. Ralph M. Shaw for appellees other than Louis Pfaelzer & Sons, in No. 621, and appellant in No. 622.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 290-293 intentionally omitted]
Page 293
Messrs. Willard M. McEwen and Joseph Weissenbach for Louis Pfaelzer & Sons, appellee in No. 621.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 293-295 intentionally omitted]
Page 295
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
These are appeals from a decree entered by the commerce court in an action begun by the United States on the application of the Attorney General, at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission, against the Union Stock Yard & Transit Company of Chicago, an Illinois corporation (hereinafter called the 'Stock Yard Company'), the Chicago Junction Railway Company, an Illinois corporation (hereinafter called the 'Junction Company'), and the Chicago Junction Railways & Union Stock Yards Company, a New Jersey Corporation (hereinafter called the 'Investment Company'), and David Pfaelzer, Abe Pfaelzer, and Jones L. Pfaelzer, a copartnership doing business under the firm name and style of Louis Pfaelzer & Sons. The bill sought to enjoin violations of §§ 2, 6, and 20 of the interstate commerce act (24 Stat. at L. 379, chap. 104, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1284; 34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288; 36 Stat. at L. 539, chap. 309), and of § 1 of the Elkins law (34 Stat. at L. 584, chap. 3591, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1288). Its prayer was that an injunction should issue to restrain the Stock Yard Company and the Junction Company from further engaging in interstate commerce until they had filed tariffs, as required by § 6 of the act, and to restrain the performance of a certain contract with the Pfaelzers, and that the Stock Yard Company and the Junction Company be required to file the statements and reports provided by § 20 of the act.
Page 296
The commerce court held that neither the Stock Yard Company nor the Investment Company was a common carrier, and that it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the contract would amount to an unlawful discrimination or advantage, or rebate, and dismissed the bill as to the Stock Yard Company and the Investment Company and as to the Pfaelzers. As to the Junction Company, it held that it was a common carrier subject to the interstate commerce act, and obliged to file its tariffs as required by the statute. It further held that, since there was no allegation in the bill that the Interstate Commerce Commission had by general or special order required the Stock Yard Company or the Junction Company to File statements and reports under § 20, it could not issue mandamus to make such statements and reports. 192 Fed. 330.
The government appealed from the dismissal of the bill as to the Stock Yard Company, the Investment Company, and the Pfaelzers, which is case No. 261. It, however, makes no contention against the holding of the commerce court as to the construction of § 20. The Junction Company appealed from the decision of the commerce court as to it, which appeal is case No. 622.
The correctness of the decision and decree of the commerce court is submitted upon facts which are practically undisputed. The Stock Yard Company was incorporated under a special act of the legislature of Illinois, February 13, 1865, which authorized it to locate, construct, and maintain near the southerly limits of the city of Chicago:
'. . . All the necessary yards, inclosures, buildings, structures, and railway lines, tracks, switches, and turnouts, aqueducts, for the reception, safe-keeping, feeding, and watering, and for the weighing, delivery, and transfer of cattle and live stock of every description, and also dead and undressed animals that may be at or pass-
Page 297
ing through or near the city of Chicago, and for the accommodation of the business of a general union stock yard for cattle and live stock, including the erection and establishment of one or more hotel buildings, and the right to use the same; . . . to make advances of money upon such cattle and live stock for freight or other purposes as may become expedient . . .'
The charter further provided:
'That said company shall construct a railway, with one or more tracks, as may be expedient, from the grounds which may be selected for its said yards, so as to connect, outside of the city of Chicago, the same with the tracks of all the railroads which terminate in Chicago, the lines of which enter the city on the south between the lake shore and the southwest corner of said city, . . . and to make connections with such suitable sidetracks, switches, and connections as to enable all of the trains running upon said railroads easily and conveniently to approach the grounds selected for said yards, and may make such arrangements or contracts with such railroad companies, or either of them, for the use of any part or portion of the track or tracks of such company or companies which now is or hereafter may be constructed, for the purposes aforesaid, as may be agreed upon between the parties; . . . and to transport and allow to be transported thereon between said railroads and cattle yards, all cattle and live stock and persons accompanying the same to and from said yards, and may also transport and allow to be transported between the railroads entering said city, . . . freight and property of every kind as well as stock and cattle. . .'
After its creation it acquired real estate, constructed and operated stock yards, with a stock market, built a hotel for the accommodation of its patrons, and constructed in the stock yards district about 300 miles of railroad track, consisting of main lines connecting with the
Page 298
trunk lines entering Chicago, and a large number of switches to the various industries which had been established adjacent to such tracks.
Prior to December 15, 1897, the Stock Yard Company carried on the stock yards and railroad business, and , although it had regular charges for the services it performed, it filed no tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission and concurred in none. On December 15, 1897, the Stock Yard Company leased all of its railroad tracks and equipment for a term of fifty years to a corporation known as the Chicago & Indiana State Line Company (hereinafter called the 'State Line Company'), retaining for itself the loading and unloading platforms and facilities used in connection with its stock yards business. This lease covered all its railroad and railroad tracks, switches, etc.; roundhouse, repair shops, machine shops, coal shutes, etc., then in existence or theretofore used by the Stock Yard Company in connection with its railroad; and all and singular the equipment and the telegraph lines, instruments, and appurtenances owned or possessed by the Stock Yard Company and used by it in conducting its railroad business. By the terms of the lease, the State Line Company was given the right in the future to maintain and operate upon the lands of the Stock Yard Company additional side tracks and switch tracks and other appurtenances necessary to reach industrial plaints.
Afterwards the State Line Company consolidated with the Chicago, Hammond, & Western Railroad Company, and the consolidated company became known as the Chicago Junction Railway Company (defendant herein), and, in addition to the railroad leased from the Stock Yard Company, operated a belt line around the city of Chicago. In November, 1907, the Junction Company sold the belt line to the East Chicago Belt Railroad Company, retaining the tracks which had been leased by the Stock Yard Company. The equipment operated by the Junction
Page 299
Company, consisting of locomotives and rolling stock, is owned by the Stock Yard Company, but the Junction Company employs its own engineers and crews.
The tracks of the Junction Company are frequently used by the trunk lines to connect the eastern and western systems and to deliver shipments originating without the state to the platforms of the Stock Yard Company, for which service they pay the Junction Company a trackage charge of a fixed sum per car. Large numbers of car load lots of dead freight from points without the state are placed on the receiving tracks of the Junction Company, bearing transfer cards showing the destination of the cars, and the Junction Company delivers the cars either to the consignee, if situated on its tracks, or to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, No. 9568.
...use of its property, as well as unloading the cattle at its docks. See, also, United States v. Union Stock Yard, 226 U. S. at page 304, 33 S. Ct. 83, 57 L. Ed. The mere fact that there is a stoppage of the cars en route to the stockyards at a transfer track or other point is merely incident......
-
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Civ. A. No. 1-299.
...the acts complained of— whether done willfully or not—may be restrained and enjoined as to the future. United States v. Union Stock Yards, 226 U.S. 286, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 226; Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 413 313 U.S. 450, 61 S.Ct. 1064, 85 L.Ed. A permanent injun......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Northern Oklahoma Rys., No. 7913.
...St. L. S. F. Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 161, 33 S. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156; United States v. Union Stock Yard, 226 U. S. 286, 304, 33 S. Ct. 83, 57 L. Ed. 226; Ohio R. R. Comm. v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 32 S. Ct. 653, 56 L. Ed. 1004. Since a portion of the traff......
-
Davison Gulfport F. Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co., No. 8338.
...M. & O. R. R., 23 I.C.C. 417; Wharfage Charges at Atlantic & Gulf Ports, 157 I.C.C. 663; United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 226 U.S. 286, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 3 Texas & P. R. Co. v. Mugg & Dryden, 202 U.S. 242, 26 S.Ct. 628, 50 L. Ed. 1011; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton......
-
Stafford v. Wallace Burton v. Clyne, Nos. 687
...by rail and in their delivery by rail the stockyards are an interstate commerce Page 517 agency. United States v. Union Stock Yards Co., 226 U. S. 286, 33 Sup. Ct. 83, 57 L. Ed. 226. The only questior here is whether the business done in the stockyards, between the receipt of the live stock......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co. v. Northern Oklahoma Rys., No. 7913.
...St. L. S. F. Ry. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 161, 33 S. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156; United States v. Union Stock Yard, 226 U. S. 286, 304, 33 S. Ct. 83, 57 L. Ed. 226; Ohio R. R. Comm. v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 32 S. Ct. 653, 56 L. Ed. 1004. Since a portion of the traff......
-
United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Civ. A. No. 1-299.
...the acts complained of— whether done willfully or not—may be restrained and enjoined as to the future. United States v. Union Stock Yards, 226 U.S. 286, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 226; Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 173 F. Supp. 413 313 U.S. 450, 61 S.Ct. 1064, 85 L.Ed. A permanent injun......
-
Denver Union Stock Yard Co. v. United States, No. 9568.
...use of its property, as well as unloading the cattle at its docks. See, also, United States v. Union Stock Yard, 226 U. S. at page 304, 33 S. Ct. 83, 57 L. Ed. The mere fact that there is a stoppage of the cars en route to the stockyards at a transfer track or other point is merely incident......
-
Extent of Regulation of Ocean and Inland Water Transportation By the Federal Government
...C.,219 U. S. 498, Feb. 20, 1911; Railroad Commission of Ohio vs.Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, May 27, 1912; U. S. vs. Union StockYards Co., 226 U. S. 286, 1912; Texas and New Orleans RailroadCo. vs. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111, Jan. 27,1913; and LouisianaRailroad Commission vs. Texas and P......