HUDSON & MANHATTAN RAILROAD CO.
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
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 court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence and its order was within its authority.
Appellant filed a passenger tariff for a 10-cent fare, which the Commission suspended. After a hearing, the Commission found an 8-cent fare would be m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substantial Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
On July 31, 1037, appellant filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a passenger tariff establishing a fare of 10 cents for interstate transportation on its downtown line in lieu of the existing fare of 6 cents. The Commission suspended the tariff and after full hearing found that the revenue results to appellant would be more favorable under an 8-cent fare than under a 10-cent fare and further determined that the proposed 10-cent fare would be unreasonable under §§ 1 and 15a of the Interstate Commerce Act and that an 8-cent fare had been justified.
The Commission directed the cancellation of the schedule filed, without prejudice to the establishment of an 8-cent fare, and accordingly, in July, 1938, appellant canceled its proposed tariff and put into effect a fare of 8 cents. The Commission refused a rehearing.
In June,1939, appellant brought this suit to set aside the Commission’s order. The case was heard in the District Court by three judges upon the record made before the Commission, and the court rendered its decision in June, 1940, holding that the findings of the Commission were based upon substantial evidence and that the order was within the Commission’s authority, was not confiscatory, and did not deprive appellant of its property without due process of law. 33 F. Supp. 495.-
' As this Court has observed, “The raising of rates does not necessarily increase revenue. It may in particular localities reduce revenue instead of increasing it, by discouraging patronage.” Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 214. The effect of an increased rate of 10 cents as'compared with one of 8 cents, with respect to resulting revenues, was necessarily one of judgment upon evidence and the Commission had evidence before it with respect to traffic conditions in the area in question and the extent of probable diversion of traffic if the fare were increased to 10 cents. We conclude that in this relation there was evidence to support the Commission’s findings and its findings supported its order. The decree of the District Court is affirmed. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 98; Virginian Railway Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 658, 665, 666; Florida v. United States, 292 U. S. 1, 9; Ohio v. United States, 292 U. S. 498, 506; United States v. American Tin Plate Co., 301 U. S. 402, 411. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. City OF Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503 (U.S. 1944)…olding it had been “amply justified” as “reasonable and lawful for the services performed.” This Court held such grounds of denial to- be sustained by evidence and to be within the Commission’s discretion. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 98. The 8-cent fare remained in effect until the carrier on June 27, 1942 filed a petition in the same proceeding for further hearing, alleging changed conditions and increased costs in support of a 10-cent fare on the downtown line. Protests were file…1 / 3
-
Chicago v. Alouette Peat Prods., 253 F.2d 449 (9th Cir. 1957)…ort and order of October 30, 1954. Findings of fact by the Commission, supported by substantial evidence, are final and binding upon the courts. I. C. C. v. Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503, 64 S.Ct. 1129, 88 L.Ed. 1420; Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. U. S., 313 U.S. 98, 61 S.Ct. 884, 85 L.Ed. 1212; I. C. C. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 222 U.S. 541, 550, 32 S.Ct. 108, 56 L.Ed. 308. The Commission, however, after finding specifically that the rates were [*454] not published as required by the Act, and that no authorizatio…
-
PAN Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 256 F.2d 711 (D.C. Cir. 1958)…e, because the Postmaster General would then give Northwest nearly all Tokyo mail and this would take away a good deal of Pan American’s revenue. We think the Board was right in giving weight to this fact. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United States, 313 U.S. 98, 61 S.Ct. 884, 85 L.Ed. 1212. “It is not theory but the impact of the rate order which counts. If the total effect of the rate order cannot be said to be unjust and unreasonable, judicial inquiry under the Act is at an end.” Federal Power Commission…
Authorities Cited
- Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 227 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1913)
- Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1926)
- Florida v. United States, 282 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1931)
- Florida v. United States, 292 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1934)
- United States v. Am. Sheet & TIN Plate Co., 301 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1937)
- Ohio v. United States, 292 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1934)