US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1. To maintain a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission upon the ground that it exceeded the powers of the Commission, it is not essential that a plaintiff should have been a party to the proceedings before the Commission in which the order was made. P. 263 U. S. 147.

2. But to maintain such a suit, the plaintiff must show that the order alleged to be void subjects him to actual or threatened legal injury. P. 263 U. S. 148.

3. Where the interest shown by a group of lumber manufacturers in attacking an order of the Commission which abolished a penalty charge on lumber held at reconsignment points was in the handicap which the charge imposed on competing jobbers, and in the possibility that its removal might divert the cars of carriers, including those of their own projected railroad, from transportation to storage users, held that they had no standing to sue to set the order aside chanrobles.com-red

Page 263 U. S. 144

on the ground that it exceeded the power of the Commission and violated the rights of carriers under the Fifth Amendment. Id.

Affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing the bill in a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.