INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
v.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Interstate Commerce Commission ordered Southern Pacific Company to cease charging a $2.50 per-car switching fee for delivering freight to industries on spurs and sidetracks in San Francisco, finding the charge unreasonable. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's injunction blocking enforcement of the Commission's order, holding that the ICC had authority to prohibit the switching charge and remanding the case for dismissal of the railroad's challenge.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Hughes delivered the opinion of the court.
The Pacific Coast Jobbers’ and Manufacturers’ Association complained before the Interstate Commerce Commission of a switching charge of $2.50 per car maintained by the respondents for delivering and receiving carload freight to and from industries located upon spurs and sidetracks within the carriers’ switching limits in San Fran cisco. The Commission, finding the facts to be similar to those found in the case of the complaint of the Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles with respect to switching charges in the latter city (18 I. C. C. 310), entered a similar order prohibiting the carriers from continuing the charge. This suit was thereupon brought in the Circuit Court of-the United States for the District of Kansas, first division, against the Interstate Commerce Commission to restrain the enforcement of the order. Upon its transfer to the Commerce Court, the United States intervened and moved to dismiss the proceeding. This motion was denied and upon the application of the petitioners an inj unction ;was granted.
The questions presented on the appeal' from this order are the same as those which have been considered in the opinion of the court in No. 98, Los Angeles Switching Case, ante, p. 294, decided this day, and for the reasons there set forth the order of the Commerce Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California with instructions to dismiss the bill.
It is so ordered.