United States ex rel. Stony Fork Coal Co. v. Louisville & N. R.

Citations

• 195 F. 88
• 1912 U.S. Commerce Ct. LEXIS 10

Syllabus

<p>1. Carriers (§ 32*)—Freight—Discrimination.</p> <p>That carriers transport coal of other shippers from practically the same territory at the same rates to the same territory and at the same time refuse to carry petitioners’ coal shows unjust discrimination.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 83-85; Dee Dig. .§ 32.*]</p> <p>2. Commerce (§ 89*)—Commerce Court—Jurisdiction.</p> <p>The Commerce Court has no jurisdiction to consider a question of car distribution in advance of some action by the Interstate Commerce Commission, on complaint of a shipper who claims that connecting carriers discriminate against him in refusing to carry freight.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Commerce, Dec. Dig. § 89.*]</p> <p>3. Mandamus (§ 141*)—Commerce Court—Jurisdiction.</p> <p>UDder Commerce Court Act (Act June 18', 1910, e. 309, 36 Stat. 539) § 1, subd. 4, giving that court jurisdiction of such mandamus proceedings as under Interstate Commerce Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 387) § 23, as amended by Act March 2, 18S9, e. 382, § 10, 25 Stat. 862. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3172), could be maintained in the federal Circuit Court, and under such section 23, authorizing mandamus against a carrier to avoid discrimination constituting a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, etc., the Commerce Court has jurisdiction of a proceeding under section 23.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Mandamus, Cent. Dig. §§ 276-278; Dec. Dig. §. 141.*</p> <p>Jurisdiction of federal courts of suits under Interstate Commerce Act, see note to Bailey v. Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 318.]</p> <p>4. Mandamus (§'133*)—Freight—Discrimination.</p> <p>Under Interstate Commerce Act (Act Fel5. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat 387) § 23, as amended by Act March 2, 1889, c. 382, § 10, 25 Stat 862 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3172), authorizing mandamus against a carrier to avoid discrimination constituting a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, §§ 3 and 7, and section 1 of the latter