Tift v. Southern Ry. Co.

Citations

• 138 F. 753
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4630

Syllabus

<p>1. Carriers — Freight Charges.</p> <p>The general rule is that, the greater the tonnage of the commodity transported, the lower should be the rate of freight charges for such transportation.</p> <p>2. Interstate Commerce Commission — Conclusiveness of Findings.</p> <p>Explicit law, the settled policy of the government, the practical principles of reason and justice require that, save for controlling reasons of law or fact, the national courts should not discredit or disparage the conclusions of the interstate commerce commission.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Commerce, §§ 138-145.]</p> <p>3. Same — Findings op Fact.</p> <p>The findings of fact set forth in the report of the commission are in all judicial proceedings deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 10, Cent. Dig. Commerce, §§ 138-145.]</p> <p>4. Prima Facie Evidence.</p> <p>Prima facie evidence of a fact is such as, in judgment of law, is sufficient to establish the fact, and, if not rebutted, remains sufficient for the purpose. Mr. Justice Story, in Kelly v. Jackson, 6 Pet. 631, 8 L. Ed. 523.</p> <p>5. Interstate Commerce Commission — Report—Presumptions—Burden op</p> <p>Proop.</p> <p>The act to regulate commerce creates a rule of presumption in favor of the commission’s report, which on its introduction in evidence changes the burden of proof, and casts it upon that party against whom the report is made.</p> <p>6. Rules op Evidence — Legislative Control.</p> <p>The Legislature, subject only to the limitations of evidence expressly enshrined in the Constitution, has entire control over the rules of evidence, and by statutory enactments may alter, change, or create them anew.</p> <p>7. Carriers — Freight Charges.</p> <p>The reasonableness of a rate of charge for transportation is eminently a question for judicial investigation. Justice Blatehford, in Chicago, M. & St. Paul R. R. v. Minnesota, 10 Sup. Ot.