Interstate Commerce Commission v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

Citations

• 220 U.S. 235
• 31 S. Ct. 392
• 55 L. Ed. 448
• 1911 U.S. LEXIS 1672

Syllabus

<p>The conclusions of the Interstate Commerce Commission on questions of fact are not reviewable by the courts. Balt. & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Pitcairn, 215 U. S. 481.</p> <p>A carrier cannot make mere ownership of goods tendered for transportation the test of the duty to carry, nor may a carrier discriminate in fixing charges for carriage upon such ownership.</p> <p>Under the act to regulate commerce a carrier cannot refuse to transport carload lots at carload rates because the goods do not actually belong to one shipper or are shipped by a forwarding agency for account of others.</p> <p>The provisions of § 2 of the act to regulate commerce, were substantially taken from § 90, the equality clause of the English Railway Clauses Consolidated Act of 1845, and had been construed by the courts prior to the enactment of § 2 as forbidding a higher charge to forwarding agents than to others.</p> <p>The right of the carrier to fix rates does not give it the right to discriminate as to those who can avail of them.</p> <p>The conclusion by the Interstate Commerce Commission that the enforcement of a rule by a carrier creates a discrimination is one of fact and not open to review by the courts.</p> <p>In the absence of statutory authority to exclude forwarding agents from availing of published rates the courts cannot overrule a conclusion of the Interstate Commerce Commission that such exclusion would create a preference; and this although the business of forwarding agents be competitive with the carrier itself.</p>