Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Finn

Citations

• 235 U.S. 601
• 35 S. Ct. 146
• 59 L. Ed. 379
• 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1847

Syllabus

<p>Where the jurisdiction of a Federal court is invoked because of questions raised under the Federal Constitution it extends to the determination of all questions presented, irrespective of the disposition that may be made of the Federal questions or whether it is necessary to decide them at all. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576.</p> <p>While the rule applicable to the Interstate Commerce Commission that an order made indisputably contrary to the evidence, or without any evidence, is arbitrary and subject to be set aside, may also be applicable to orders of the Kentucky Railroad Commission, in this case held, that there was substantial evidence to support the order establishing rates and the Commission had jurisdiction under the McChord -Act to make the order reestablishing a former rate.</p> <p>Where the evidence shows that special rates.on a particular commodity were voluntarily established and were maintained for many years after the avowed reason for introducing them had ceased to exist, and the carrier’s reason for an advance was not because they were inadequate but because they gave rise to discrimination, there is a reasonable inference that the advanced rates are unreasonably high which is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Kentucky Railroad Commission under the McChord Act to make an order reestablishing the original rates and to support the conclusion that such rates were remunerative and should be reestablished.</p> <p>Where, in a proceeding before a state Railroad Commission, complaining shippers specified the amount of extortionate charges for which reparation was prkyed and the carrier admitted the rates had been charged and denied liability for reparation solely on the ground that the rates were reasonable, and there was evidence to support the charges that the rates were extortionate, and the record does not show that the carriers were denied an opportunity to introduce evidence,, this court will not declare that an order of reparation was contrary