Ziffrin v. United States, No. 245

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtREED
Citation87 L.Ed. 621,63 S.Ct. 465,318 U.S. 73
PartiesZIFFRIN, Inc., v. UNITED STATES et al
Decision Date01 February 1943
Docket NumberNo. 245

318 U.S. 73
63 S.Ct. 465
87 L.Ed. 621
ZIFFRIN, Inc.,

v.

UNITED STATES et al.

No. 245.
Argued Dec. 16, 1942.
Decided Feb. 1, 1943.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1943.

See 318 U.S. 800, 63 S.Ct. 757, 87 L.Ed. —-.

On Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Indiana.

Page 74

Mr. Ira Howell Ellis, of Boston, Mass., for appellant.

Mr. Daniel H. Kunkel, of Washington, D.C., for appellees.

Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal brings here for review a judgment of a statutory three judge court denying a petition for an interlocutory and a final injunction setting aside and annulling an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.1 The order attacked denied an application of appellant, an Indiana corporation, filed February 4, 1936, for a permit to continue designated contract carrier operations under the grandfather clause of Section 209(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 309(a).

The denial of the application by the Commission on May 29, 1941, 28 M.C.C. 683, was on the ground that applicant and Ziffrin Truck Lines, Inc., a certificated com-

Page 75

mon carrier by motor vehicle, were owned, controlled and managed in a common interest and that under Section 210 of the Interstate Commerce Act, Part II, 49 U.S.C.A. § 310 it would not be consistent with the public interest and the national transportation policy to grant the application.

Section 210 of the Motor Carrier Act was amended between the filing of the application and the entry of the order denying it. The two forms of Section 210 appear in the note below.2

Page 76

It is appellant's contention that whatever may have been the effect of the earlier form, with the passage of the amendment after the hearing the applicant should now have an opportunity to show the absence of common control of it and Ziffrin Truck Lines, Incorporated. As Section 210 stood when appellant requested its permit and at the hearing, a certificate as a common carrier and a permit as a contract carrier were not to be held by the same person without special finding of consistency with the public interest by the Commission. The amendment provided that without a similar special finding no person should hold a contract carrier permit who was under common control with a person holding a common carrier certificate. Person, of course, included a corporation. 49 U.S.C. § 303(a)(1), 49 U.S.C.A. § 303(a)(1).

Obviously the fear of possible evasion led to the change in language. Indeed, the Commission had disregarded the corporate fiction and interpreted the earlier form as covering persons under common control.3 This was called to applicant's attention by an order of June 23, 1938, setting the date for hearing the application.4 The interpretation was discussed in the examiner's report, in the Com-

Page 77

mission's report, and applied, adversely to appellant, by the findings. 28 M.C.C. 683, 692-99.

When the Transportation Act of 1940 was before the Senate, the draftsmen added a sentence to the earlier form of Section 210, reading as follows: 'This section shall apply to dual operations by affiliated carriers.' When the bill, S. 2009, in the two forms in which it was enacted in the Senate and the House of Representatives, was examined by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Chairman of its legislative committee transmitted a report on the provisions of the bill to the Chairman of the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee and the Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.5 In the report (at page 62) this comment was made as to the present Section 210:

'Desirable.—(a) After the new section 22 which we have proposed above, add a new section 23 (with appropriate renumbering of subsequent sections) reading as follows:

"Sec. 23. Section 210 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: 'This section shall apply to dual operations by affiliated carriers." This sentence has been introduced at the end of section 45 of the Senate bill, and it has our approval. The Commission has construed section 210 of part II to have such an application, but it is desirable to remove all doubt on the point.'

At the conference of the committee for the two Houses of Congress, the form of Section 210 was changed to the present reading. The report contains this explanation:6

Page 78

'Section 21(a). Dual Operations Under Certificates and Permits, Motor Carriers.

'The conference substitute in section 21(a) amends section 210 of the Interstate Commerce Act which prohibits a person from holding at the same time both a certificate as a common carrier of property by motor vehicle and a permit as a contract carrier of property by motor vehicle...

To continue reading

Request your trial
123 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...reflect the law in effect at the time the agency makes a final determination on a pending application. See Ziffrin v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78 (1943); State of Alabama v. EPA, 557 F.2d 1101, 1110 (5th Cir. 1977); In re: Dominion Brayton Point, LLC, 12 E.A.D. 490, 614-616 (EAB 2006); I......
  • CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUN., OLDER AMER. v. Weinberger, Civ. No. S74-32.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 5, 1974
    ...v. Housing Authority of City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 281-283, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969), and Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943). But, clearly, the Secretary could not have included it in his administrative record of State acts prior to ......
  • Miranda v. State, No. 759
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1966
    ...v. Fay, 333 F.2d 12, 16 (C.A.2d Cir. 1964), affd, 381 U.S. 654, 85 S.Ct. 1750, 14 L.Ed.2d 623 (1965). Cf. Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943).70. Because of this disposition of the case, the California Supreme Court did not reach the claims tha......
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., HANGER-SILAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 9, 1990
    ...Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 120, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901), or a permit for future action, see Ziffrin v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 468, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943), a case remanding to a state court in order for the state court to determine the effect of a newly enact......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
121 cases
  • CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE COUN., OLDER AMER. v. Weinberger, Civ. No. S74-32.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • April 5, 1974
    ...v. Housing Authority of City of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 281-283, 89 S.Ct. 518, 21 L.Ed.2d 474 (1969), and Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943). But, clearly, the Secretary could not have included it in his administrative record of State acts prior to ......
  • Miranda v. State, No. 759
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • October 10, 1966
    ...v. Fay, 333 F.2d 12, 16 (C.A.2d Cir. 1964), affd, 381 U.S. 654, 85 S.Ct. 1750, 14 L.Ed.2d 623 (1965). Cf. Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943).70. Because of this disposition of the case, the California Supreme Court did not reach the claims tha......
  • DeVargas v. Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc., HANGER-SILAS
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • August 9, 1990
    ...Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 120, 22 S.Ct. 45, 46, 46 L.Ed. 111 (1901), or a permit for future action, see Ziffrin v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 468, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943), a case remanding to a state court in order for the state court to determine the effect of a newly enact......
  • Am. Freedom Defense Initiative v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 17-7059
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 17, 2018
    ...between a nisi prius and an appellate decision requires the appellate court to apply the changed law." Ziffrin, Inc. v. United States , 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943). Though the present situation is slightly different, for the policy here changed prior to rather than af......
  • 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