US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

ICC V. WASTE MERCHANTS ASSN., 260 U. S. 32 (1922)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 260 U. S. 32 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

ICC v. Waste Merchants Assn., 260 U.S. 32 (1922)

Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States ex Rel.

Members of Waste Merchants Association of New York

No 245

Argued October 9, 10, 1922

Decided October 23, 1922

260 U.S. 32




Mandamus will not lie to compel the Interstate Commerce Commission to set aside a decision upon the merits and to decide the matter in another specified way. P. 260 U. S. 34.

51 App.D.C. 136; 277 F.5d 8, reversed.

Error to a judgment of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia reversing a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District (which dismissed a petition for mandamus) and directing that mandamus issue. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 260 U. S. 33

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

In March, 1919, the Waste Merchants' Association of New York filed in the Interstate Commerce Commission a complaint under § 13 of the Act to Regulate Commerce of February 9, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379, 384, as amended. It alleged that existing tariffs on paper stock shipped in carload lots from New York Harbor imposed upon carriers the duty of loading cars, that the carriers had failed to perform this duty on shipments made by complainants' members, that these had been obliged to perform the service at their own expense, and that they were entitled, under § 15 of the act, to allowances therefor. The prayer was that the carriers be ordered to pay, by way of reparation, allowances for the loading service and also other damages for violation of law and that the carriers be ordered to observe the law in the future. The Director General of Railroads and 184 transportation companies were made respondents; extensive hearings were had; the Commission filed a report embodying its findings of fact and conclusions, entered an order dismissing the complaint, and on August 7, 1920, overruled a petition for rehearing based on alleged errors in conclusions of fact and of law and newly discovered evidence. Then, on behalf of the association members, this petition for a writ of mandamus was filed in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. It prayed that the Commission be directed to take jurisdiction of the claims, to allow damages, and to fix the amount thereof. Upon a rule to show cause, objection was made to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, and the case was heard upon demurrer to the answer, which set up more fully the proceedings before the Commission. The Supreme Court of the District dismissed the petition on the ground that the relators, having participated chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 260 U. S. 34

in and obtained benefits from the alleged violations of law, were not in a position to complain. Its judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals of the District on the ground that, upon the facts found by the Commission complainants were clearly entitled to relief. The case was remanded, with directions to issue the mandamus. 51 App.D.C. 136, 277 F.5d 8. It is here on writ of error.

We have no occasion to consider the merits of the controversy before the Commission. That it did not dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is clear. It heard the case fully. It found that the rates charged were not unreasonable or discriminatory in violation of the Commerce Act, nor unreasonable for the service actually performed in violation of the Federal Control Act. It found that the conditions complained of were an incident of the World War, that the arrangement for loading was a voluntary one beneficial to complaints' members, that there was no provision in the tariffs for allowance to shippers who load cars, and that therefore such allowance could not legally be made by the carriers. The Commission dismissed the complaint because it held that the petitioners were not entitled to relief. Waste Merchants' Association v. Director General, 57 I.C.C. 686.

Petitioners sought in the proceeding to set aside the adverse decision of the Commission on the merits and to compel a decision in their favor. The court of appeals granted the writ. This was error. Mandamus cannot be had to compel a particular exercise of judgment or discretion, Riverside Oil Co. v. Hitchcock, 190 U. S. 316; Ness v. Fisher, 223 U. S. 683; Hall v. Payne, 254 U. S. 343; or be used as a writ of error, Commissioner of Patents v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522. The case at bar is not like Interstate Commerce Commission v. Humbolt Steamship Co., 224 U. S. 474, and Louisville Cement Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 246 U. S. 638, where the Commission chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 260 U. S. 35

had wrongly held that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy; nor is it like Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 252 U. S. 178, where the Commission wrongly refused to perform a specific, peremptory duty prescribed by Congress.

Whether a judicial review can be had by some other form of proceeding we need not inquire. Compare Louisiana & Pine Bluff Railway Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 114, 257 U. S. 116; Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. v. United States, 240 U. S. 334, 240 U. S. 336; Proctor & Gamble Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 282.


ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™