William Mills v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 21 June 1915
• Docket Number: No. 631,631
• Citation: 59 L.Ed. 1414,238 U.S. 473,35 S.Ct. 888
• Parties: WILLIAM H. MILLS, as Surviving Partner and Liquidator of J. Mitchell Clark, William H. Mills, and J. Armstrong Rawlins, Copartners, Trading under the Firm Name of Naylor & Company Plff. in Err., v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Railway Company, New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

238 U.S. 473

35 S.Ct. 888

59 L.Ed. 1414

WILLIAM H. MILLS, as Surviving Partner and Liquidator of J. Mitchell Clark, William H. Mills, and J. Armstrong Rawlins, Copartners, Trading under the Firm Name of Naylor & Company Plff. in Err.,

v LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY, Buffalo, Rochester, & Pittsburgh Railway Company, New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, et al.

No. 631.

Argued May 11, 1915.

Decided June 21, 1915.

Messrs. V. F. Gable, Arthur R. Thompson, and Frank Van Sant for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from page 474 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Henry S. Drinker, Jr., Edgar H. Boles, John G. Johnson, and Samuel Dickson for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court:

During the years 1906 and 1907, Naylor & Company—a firm of which the plaintiff in error is surviving partner—were shippers of pyrites cinder over the lines of the defendants in error from Buffalo, New York, to points in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The published rate was $2 per gross ton. On April 4, 1908, these shippers filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission, alleging that the rate was 'excessive,' 'unreasonable,' and 'unjustly discriminatory.' They asked that the railroad companies be ordered to desist from exacting the rate, that a lower rate be fixed, and that reparation be granted. The defendants answered and, after hearing, the Commission made its report on January 5, 1909, holding 'that the rate on pyrites cinder should not exceed the rate on iron ore from Buffalo.' The rate on iron ore was $1.45 per ton to points of destination to which there was a rate of $2 on pyrites cinder. Reparation was refused. Naylor & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 15 Inters. Com. Rep. 9. Order was made accordingly.

On May 8, 1909, Naylor & Company filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a motion for a rehearing on the question of reparation alone, and the motion was granted. Additional evidence was taken and various sums were awarded by the Commission against the respective companies as reparation on shipments made within the period of limitation. The order was made on June 2, 1910.

In May, 1911, this suit was brought, pursuant to § 16 of the act to regulate commerce, in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, to recover the several amounts of money set forth 'as and for damages and reparation' in accordance with the Commission's order. Issue was joined by a plea of not guilty. Upon the trial, the two reports and orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, above mentioned, were received in evidence over objection. There was testimony that the amounts awarded had not been paid. That constituted the case for the plaintiffs, and the defendants offered no evidence. A request by the defendants for 'binding instructions' in their favor was refused. The case was submitted to the jury with the instruction, in substance, that the finding of the Commission was prima facie evidence of the facts, and that it was for the jury to say whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of money claimed. A verdict was returned for the plaintiffs in specified amounts which appear to be the same as those awarded by the Commission with interest to date. The defendants then moved for judgment non obstante veredicto. The motion was dismissed and judgment ordered for the plaintiffs on October 30, 1912. At the same time, the trial court allowed to the counsel for the plaintiffs a fee of $1,000 for their services in the proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission and a further fee of like amount for their services in this suit; and to this allowance the defendants excepted. Exceptions having also been taken to the refusal of the request of the court to direct a verdict for the defendants, to the instruction given, and to the dismissal of the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, proceedings in error were had before the circuit court of appeals, where the judgment was reversed, without directing a new trial. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Clark, 125 C. C. A. 235, 207 Fed. 717. And to review the judgment, this writ of error has been prosecuted.

The grounds of the ruling of the court below are: first, that there were no sufficient findings of fact in the reports of the Commission, as required by the statute; and, second, that the plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence which made out a prima facie case of damage sustained. That is, it is said that if the statements in the first report of the Commission could be regarded as findings of fact within the meaning of the statute so as to make them prima facie evidence of the facts found, they were not sufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim; and that there were no facts found in the second report which entitled the plaintiffs to go to the jury.

The fundamental question thus presented, with respect to the effect of the Commission's reports and orders, has recently been determined in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 236 U. S. 412, 59 L. ed. ——, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 328, and, in the light of the conclusion there reached, little need now be said. In dealing with the objection that the reports and orders of the Commission then before the court did not contain any findings of fact, or at least not enough to sustain an award of damages, it was held that the statute does not require a statement of the evidential or primary facts. The court said: 'We think this is not the right view of the statute, and that what it requires is a finding of the ultimate facts,—a finding which, as applied to the present case, would dis- close (1) the relation of the parties as shipper and carrier in interstate commerce; (2) the character and amount of the traffic out of which the claims arose; (3) the rates paid by the shipper for the service rendered, and whether they were according to the established tariff; (4) whether and in what way unjust discrimination was practised against the shipper . . .; (5) whether, if there was unjust discrimination, the shipper was injured thereby, and, if so, the amount of his damages; (6) whether the rate collected from the shipper . . . was excessive and unreasonable, and, if so, what would have been a reasonable rate for the service; and (7) whether, if the rate was excessive and unreasonable, the shipper was injured thereby, and, if so, the amount of his damages.'

In the case now under consideration, the first report of the Commission was concerned only with the rates which should...