ST. JOE PAPER CO. ET AL.
v.
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.; LYNCH ET AL. V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.; AIRD ET AL., TRUSTEES, V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.; AND WELBON ET AL. V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO.

U.S. | 1953-05-04
Nos. 670; No. 702; No. 705; No. 710
345 U.S. 948 Supreme Court of the United States (1953) Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 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.


Holding

The Court granted certiorari to determine if amendments to the Bankruptcy Act in 1935 authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission to force railroad mergers, a power seemingly withheld under the 1933 Act.


Facts & Procedural History

The 1933 Bankruptcy Act for railroad reorganizations contained 'consistency' clauses that required mergers to comply with the Interstate Commerce Act,…

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.


Opinion of the Court

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari granted limited to question “I” presented by the petition for writ of cer-tiorari in No. 670, i. e.:

“I. It being clear that Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, as enacted in 1933, did not authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission to present a plan of reorganization of a railroad involving a 'forced’ merger of the debtor Railway with another railroad, the question is whether amendments to the 1933 Act, made in 1935, do authorize forced mergers.

“The Act of 1933 for railroad reorganizations in bankruptcy contained in subdivision (b) a so called consistency clause which qualified the powers of the Commission in respect of mergers, by expressly providing that a merger would have to be brought about by compliance with ‘provisions’ of the Interstate Commerce Act which allowed mergers only if requested and agreéd to by the carrier and then approved by the Commission, after notice to the Governors of the states, and after hearing communities and shippers served by the carriers. This 'consistency’ provision in this legislation was repeated in subd. (e) of the 1933 Act, where it was said that transfers of property or consolidations or mergers may be made ‘to the extent contemplated by the plan consistent with the purposes of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended’. It will be noted that the clause in (b) used the word ‘provisions’ and the clause in (e) used the word ‘purposes’; By amendments in 1935 these two ‘consistency’ clauses were consolidated and transplanted from (b) and (e) to subdivision (f).

William D. Mitchell and Edward E. Watts, Jr. for petitioners in No. 670. With them on the petition were Harold J. Gallagher, Walter H. Brown, Jr. and James B. McDonough, Jr. for the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co., Clarence M. Mulholland and Edward J. Hickey, Jr. for the Railway Labor Executives Association, Sidney S. Alderman and Henry L. Walker for the Southern Railway System, and Henry P. Adair and Donald Russell for the Trustees under duPont Will, also petitioners in No. 670. J. Turner Butler, Fred N. Oliver and Willard P. Scott for petitioners in No. 702. Clifton S. Thomson for petitioners in No. 705. Miller Walton for petitioners in No. 710. Edward W. Bourne, Charles Cook Howell, Richard B. Gwathmey and Charles Cook Howell, Jr. for respondent.

“In the 1935 Act, subd. (f), the clause allowing transfer and mergers had the qualification ‘to the extent contemplated by the plan’ and ‘not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of Chapter 1 of Title 49 as on August 27, 1935 or thereafter amended.’

“The narrow question is therefore whether the mere transfer of the ‘consistency’ clauses from subdivisions (b) and (e) to subdivision (f) altered the meaning of the clauses and gave to the Interstate Commerce Commission a power to force mergers, which was withheld from it under the Act of 1933.”


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …er case, i. e., that the Commission had no power under the statute to propose such a compelled merger plan.4 201 F. 2d 325. [*303] Because of the importance of this question in the administration of § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, we granted certiorari. 345 U. S. 948. The procedure by which the Commission is authorized to consider and approve a plan of reorganization and then submit it to the interested parties for acceptance, as well as the courts for judicial confirmation, is governed by an elaborate statutor…
  • Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. ST. JOE Paper Co., 216 F.2d 832 (5th Cir. 1954)
    …Paper Co., 5 Cir., 179 F. 2d 638, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 929, 70 S.Ct. 627, 94 L.Ed. 1349 ; In re Florida East Coast Railway Co., D.C., 103 F.Supp. 825; Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co. v. St. Joe Paper Co., 5 Cir., 201 F. 2d 325, certiorari granted 345 U.S. 948, 73 S.Ct. 866, 97 L.Ed. 1372, reversed 347 U.S. 298, 74 S.Ct. 574, rehearing denied 347 U.S. 980, 74 S.Ct. 734. See also, In re Florida East Coast Ry. Co., D.C., 49 F.Supp. 527 and In re Florida East Coast Ry. Co., D.C., 52 F.Supp. 420.…
    1 / 3

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw