Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Behlmer

Citations

• 175 U.S. 648
• 20 S. Ct. 209
• 44 L. Ed. 309
• 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1713

Syllabus

<p>The conceded facts from -which it has been assumed in this case, as a matter of law, that the railway carriers were operating “under a common control, management or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment” were as follows: The several carriers transported hay from Memphis under through bills of lading, by continuous carriage, to Summerville and Charleston. The several roads shared in an agreed rate on traffic to Charleston and in a precisely equal in amount rate on traffic to Summerville. On. shipments to Summerville, however, there was added to the Charleston rate the amount of the local rate from Charleston to Summerville, the benefit of which additional exaction was solely received by the local road on which Summerville was situated. The contention that under this state of facts the carriers did not constitute a continuous line, bringing them within the control of the Act to regulate Commerce, is no longer open to controversy in this court. In Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 184, which was decided after this case was before the Commission and the Circuit Court, it was held under a state of facts substantially similar to that here found that the carriers were thereby subject to the Act to regulate Commerce.</p> <p>It is settled by previous decisions that the construction given in this cause by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Circuit Court of Appeals to the fourth section of the Act to regulate Commerce was erroneous, and hence that both the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Circuit Court of Appeals mistakenly considered, as a matter of law, that competition, however material, arising from carriers who were subject to the Act to regulate Commerce could not be taken into consideration; and likewise that all competition, however substantial, not originating at the.initial point of the traffic, was equally as a matter of law excluded from view.</p> <p>What was decided in the prev