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

CHICAGO JUNCTION CASE, 264 U. S. 258 (1924)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 264 U. S. 258 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258 (1924)

The Chicago Junction Case*

No. 489

Argued January 24, 1924

Decided March 3, 1924

264 U.S. 258


1. An order of the Interstate Commerce Commission permitting one carrier to acquire control of another, made under par. 2 of § 5 of the amended Act to Regulate Commerce, which allows this whenever the Commission is of opinion, after hearing, that the acquisition will be in the public interest, is subject to judicial review. P. 264 U. S. 263.

2. Such an order is void if the finding that the acquisition will be in the public interest is made without supporting evidence. P. 264 U. S. 265.

3. Facts conceivably known to the Commission but not put in evidence will not support an order. P. 264 U. S. 263.

4. In a bill to set aside such an order, an allegation that such finding was wholly unsupported by evidence charges a fact which must be taken as admitted on appeal from a decree dismissing the bill on motion equivalent to a demurrer. P. 264 U. S. 262.

5. Carriers which suffer serious disadvantage, prejudice, and loss of traffic from the transfer of neutral terminal railroads to the control of a competitor, and which intervened unsuccessfully before the Commission in opposition to such transfer, have a standing to attack the order permitting it upon the ground that there was no evidence to support the finding of public interest on which the order was based. P. 264 U. S. 266.

6. Section 212 Jud.Code, which declares that any party to a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission may, as of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 264 U. S. 259

right, become a party to any suit wherein is involved the validity of its order, impliedly authorizes one who was permitted to oppose an order before the Commission by intervention to institute a suit to challenge it. P. 264 U. S. 267.

7. Under the Act of October 22, 1913, a suit may be brought to set aside an order of the Commission and also to restore the status quo ante by joining with the United States private parties who appeared before the Commission and have acquired rights under the order. P. 264 U. S. 269.


Appeal from a decree of the district court denying an interlocutory injunction and dismissing the bill, on motion, in a suit to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

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 |™