UNITED STATES
v.
ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY; SAME V. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY; SAME V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY

U.S. | 1911-04-03
Nos. 537, 538, 539
220 U.S. 275 Supreme Court of the United States (1911) Caution
Also reported at: 55 L. Ed. 464 · 31 S. Ct. 392 · 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1674 · SCDB 1910-101
Cited by 16 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

The United States sued three railroad companies under the commodities clause, but after the Supreme Court reversed an initial judgment in a related case, the government moved to dismiss its complaints without prejudice and then refused to proceed further, leading the Circuit Court to enter absolute dismissals. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals, holding that since no violation of the commodities clause was shown on the admitted facts and the government did not seek to amend its complaint, the Circuit Court properly refused to qualify its dismissal decree.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White

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

These three cases were embraced in the commodities cases previously before this court, and, like the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company Case, No. 536, ante, p. 257, they are but sequels of the controversy pointed out in the opinion in that case as having been formerly passed upon in the opinion reported in Sand Filtration Corporation v. Cowardin, 213 U. S.

366. These cases, however, differ from the Lehigh Valley Case in'" this respect. Upon the filing in the Circuit Court of the mandate of this court the United States in each case, upon the same record on which the reversed decree was based, without offering to show any further facts, or withdrawing the stipulation to submit the cause on bill and answer referred to in the opinion in the Lehigh Valley Case, moved that the decree to be entered be “that the bill be dismissed without prejudice.” This motion was denied, whereupon the court was informed that the Government did not intend to proceed further with the cause, and in each case a decree was entered dismissing the cause absolutely.

The error alleged is in substance that the Circuit Court erred in each case in dismissing the bill of complaint absolutely. But leave, to amend was not asked, and as, upon the facts appearing and admitted on each record, no violation of the commodities clause was shown, the decree entered may properly be held to have been in strict “conformity with the opinion of this court.” Whatever, therefore, in view of the stipulation made below, may be the scope and effect of the decree as res judicata, we see no reason for concluding that error was committed by the Circuit Court in refusing to qualify its decree. The decree in each case is, therefore,

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

  • United States v. Delaware, 238 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1915)
  • Pub. Serv. Comm'n OF the State OF NEW York v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 543 F.2d 757 (D.C. Cir. 1974)
    …note 117. . Baltimore & O. R.R. v. United States, 298 U.S. 349, 362, 56 S.Ct. 797, 80 L.Ed. 1209 (1936); Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 531, 547, 34 S.Ct. 359, 58 L. Ed. 713 (1914); ICC v. Delaware, L. & W. R.R., 220 U.S. 235, 248-251, 31 S.Ct. 392, 55 L.Ed. 448 (1911); Brown v. District of Columbia, 127 U.S. 579, 586, 8 S.Ct. 1314, 32 L.Ed. 262 (1888); Cooley v. O’Connor, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 391, 398, 20 L.Ed. 446 (1871) Railroad Comm’n v. Louisville & N. R.R., 140 Ga. 817, 80 S.E. 327, 335-33…
  • Alamo Express, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States, 673 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1982)
    …such small shipments together for shippers and to obtain the benefit of the full-carload rates in delivering the goods to the various destinations. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 220 U.S. 235, 31 S.Ct. 392, 55 L.Ed. 448 (1911); C. A. Miller, Interstate Commerce Law and Procedure 318-321 (1939). Initially, freight forwarders themselves were not regulated under the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act. However, because certain abuses by way of pr…

Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw