TEXAS & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
RAILROAD COMMISSION OF LOUISIANA
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.
Texas & Pacific Railway Company, a federal corporation, challenged a Louisiana Railroad Commission order setting freight rates for cotton-seed products as exceeding the Commission's statutory authority and violating due process under the state constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the railway's suit, finding no clear error in the factual findings of two lower courts that the railway failed to prove its case, thereby declining to disturb concurrent factual determinations absent plain error.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr, Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant, a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, filed its bill in equity in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to restrain the enforcement of an order of the Louisiana Railroad Commission fixing rates for the carriage of cotton-seed and its products, on the ground that the order exceeded the powers conferred upon the Commission by the state law, indeed, was so unreasonably low as to be a violation of the due process clause of the state constitution. After issue joined the testimony was heard by a special master who found for complainant. The Circuit Court on exceptions filed by respondents to the master’s report after reviewing the facts gave judgment sustaining the exceptions, setting aside the report and dismissing, the bill on the ground that the evidence did not support the master’s report — in other words, that the complainant had failed to prove its case. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals the evidence was again reviewed, and the judgment affirmed. (192 Fed. Rep. 280.) This appeal was then taken.
Both the courts below passed on the facts and agreed in holding that appellant failed to establish by the evidence its right to the relief demanded, and the rule is well settled that findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts will not be disturbed by this court unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit Ass’n, 209 U. S. 20. As from an examination of the record we find no ground for concluding that there was plain error, the decree must be and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1930)…low decided against the petitioners. Under the well-established rule, this Court accepts the findings in which two courts concur, unless clear error is shown. Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1, 14; Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338; Washington Securities Company v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Bodkin v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 221, 223. We cannot say that there was such error in this case. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals approached the consideration of…
-
Brewer-Elliott OIL & GAS Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1922)…the argument nor. the record discloses any ground which can overcome the weight which the findings of two courts must have with us. Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Louisiana R. R. Commission, 232 U. S. 338; Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222, 224; Dun v. Lumbermen’s (Credit Association, 209 U. S. 20, 24. It is a natural inference that Congress in its grant to the Osage Indians , in 1872 made it extend to the main channel of the river, onl…
-
Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1915)…ordance with the well-settled rule their determination' upon mere questions of fact will not be disturbed, unless clear error is shown. Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1, 14; Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 24; Texas & Pacific Ry. v. Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338, 339; Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Gilson v. United States, 234 U. S. 380, 384. An examination of the record fails to disclose any such error in the finding as to the fraud of the entrymen, and it is not necessary to…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 222 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1911)
- DUN v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n, 209 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1908)