Skip to main content
· 6/9/1913

Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Citations

  • 230 U.S. 247
  • 33 S. Ct. 916
  • 57 L. Ed. 1472
  • 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2710

Syllabus

<p>Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. International Coal Co., ante, p. 184, followed to effect that the courts have jurisdiction of a case brought by a shipper against a carrier for the amount of damages actually sustained by him for charging him the full tariff when it was carrying the same goods the same distance for other shippers at lower rates but that such damages must be sustained by proof as to the amount thereof.</p> <p>The courts have not jurisdiction of a suit brought by a shipper against a carrier for damages by reason of paying other shippers of similar goods an unreasonable amount for services in connection with such transportation, unless and until there has been a finding by the Interstate Commerce Commission that the payments so made to the other shippers were unreasonably large.</p> <p>A carrier has the right under the Act to Regulate Commerce to pay shippers a reasonable' allowance for services in connection with transportation of goods shipped by them, and the allowance paid must'be treated b3r the courts as prima facie reasonable until the Interstate Commerce Commission has determined otherwise.</p> <p>When the case is here on'a question of jurisdiction only, this court cannot pass upon questions which go to the merits.</p> <p>There is a necessity, which is recognized by the Act to Regulate Commerce, of having questions as to reasonableness of rates and allowances settled bjr a single tribunal in order to avoid the conflicting decisions which would result if several different tribunals could pass upon the same question; and the act itself has designated the Interstate Commerce Commission as that tribunal.</p> <p>Allowances for lateral hauling may bo lawfully paid, as tiny become unlawful only when unreasonable; whether unreasonable either past or future is a rate-making question over which the courts have no jurisdiction, even if the parties attempt to give it'by consent.</p> <p>This action, having been commenced without any. application having been m

Judges: Lamar, Pitney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.