SMITH
v.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
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 sought to compel Smith to answer questions about his knowledge of railroad funds allegedly used for political campaigns and improperly charged to operating or construction expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order requiring Smith to answer the questions, holding that such inquiries into the allocation of corporate funds on a company's books fell within the Commission's authority to investigate railroad practices.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was heard with No. 337, just decided, ante, 33. Like the latter case it was based on a proceeding brought by the Intestate Commerce Commission in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to enforce answers to certain questions asked of appellant by the Commission and which he refused to answer upon the advice of counsel.
The petition and reply thereto are the same as in No. 337 and present for decision the same propositions.
The court entered an order requiring appellant to answer questions to the following effect:
1st. Whether he had personal knowledge of funds of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad used for political campaign purposes in the State of Tennessee and charged on the books of the carrier to operating expenses or construction account; and, 2nd, whether he had personal knowledge of funds of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad used for campaign purposes in the State of Kentucky and charged on the books of the carrier to construction account or operating expenses.
It will be observed that the questions are limited, as some of the questions in No. 337 were, to the allocation upon the books of the company of the funds expended, if any. They are within the reasoning of the opinion in No. 337, and on the authority of that case the order is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.R. Labor Bd. v. Robertson (N.D. Ill. 1924)…the statute, as it was then framed, did not cover the proceedings in which it was sought to require the evidence. The, comment of the Supreme Court on the Harriman Case in Smith v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 245 U. S. 41, 44, 38 S. Ct. 30, 33 (62 L. Ed. 141) is applicable here: “Appellant presses that case beyond its principle,, and we may observe that section 13 has been amended and broadened since the decision of that casé.1 The inquiry in the present case is more immediate to the function of the Co…