SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

U.S. | 1909-12-06
No. 275
215 U.S. 226 Supreme Court of the United States (1909) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 54 L. Ed. 169 · 30 S. Ct. 89 · 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1750 · SCDB 1909-025
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Southern Pacific Company challenged an Interstate Commerce Commission order setting maximum rates for transporting lumber from Oregon to San Francisco, seeking to enjoin its enforcement in federal circuit court. The Supreme Court dismissed the certificate and remanded the case to the Circuit Court, applying the same grounds established in the companion case Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission regarding the proper procedure for reviewing ICC rate orders.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes here, upon a certificate of. the three judges of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California under § 1 of the expediting act of February 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat. 823, as construed by them.

The suit was. brought by the railroad companies in the Circuit Court to' restrain the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which established a maxi mum rate for the transportation of rough green fir lumber from points in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, to San Francisco. The case came on' for argument before the three Circuit Judges upon the demurrer of the commission to the amended' bill of complaint, to which was attached the opinion and order of the commission.

The Circuit Judges certified the whole case, and. it comes here without opinion, decision or assignment of errors.

Upon the grounds stated in No. 339, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, ante, p. 216, the certificate is dismissed and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to proceed therein in conformity with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Biscayne Realty & Ins. Co. v. Ostend Realty Co., 109 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1933)
    …the same parties or the same interests remain before the court. It is merely ancillary to the original pleading. The facts set up must be material and germane to the cause set out in the original. See Rio Grand Dam & Irrigation Co. v. United States, 215 U. S. 226, 54 L. Ed. 190, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 97; 24 Standard Ency. Proc. 528; Story’s Eq. Pl. 332; Beach v. Reynolds, 64 Bark. (N. Y.) 506; 21 C. J. 540; Owens v. Love, 9 Fla. 325; Ledwith v. City of Jacksonville, 32 Fla. 1, 13 South. Rep. 454; State v. Black R…
  • S. Pac. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n, 219 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1911)
    …ception of public policy and its right to enforce what was deemed best, under, the circumstances, for the interest of shippers. There was a demurrer to the amended bill, and the court certified the case to this court. The certificate was dismissed. 215 U. S. 226. On the receipt of the mandate the demurrer was withdrawn and a new demurrer, as also an answer to the bill, , were filed. In the answer the lumber conditions in the Willamette Valley were recited, as also what were alleged to be the circumstances c…
  • Interstate Commerce Comm'n & the United States v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 225 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1912)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw