United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad
Citations
- 242 U.S. 208
- 37 S. Ct. 95
- 61 L. Ed. 251
- 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1514
Syllabus
<p>The powers conferred on the Interstate Commerce Commission by the Act to Regulate Commerce, as amended (Acts of February 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379; March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 855; June 29, 1906, 34 Stat. 584; and June 18, 191'0, 36 Stat. 539), do not include the power to require carriers to provide and furnish oil tank cars — no question of discrimination being involved.</p> <p>Without attempting to define the measure of the carrier’s duty to satisfy the needs of shippers by adding in quantity or kind to its car equipment, held, that neither by the Act of 1887 nor the amendatory Act of 1906 did Congress intend that the enforcement of such duty might be compelled by orders of' the Interstate Commerce Commission.</p> <p>In reaching this conclusion much weight is properly attached to the fact that it accords both with the construction placed by the Commission upon the Act of 1887 before the Act of 1906 was adopted and also with the explanation which the Commission made to Congress concerning the occasion and scope of the Act of 1906 when that statute was in process of enactment.</p> <p>In construing the amendment of 1906, the fact that, as here involved, it was drawn and recommended by the Commission justifies in -this case the assumption that in legal import it was not intended to exceed the Commission’s recommendation.</p> <p>The neglect or refusal to furnish tank cars is not a “practice” within the meaning of § 15 of the Commerce Act, as amended June 18,1910.-When a carrier in its published tariffs denies any obligation to furnish tank cars, the fact that it publishes rates for commodities so carried may not be construed as an offer, constituting a duty, to furnish such ears; and a finding by the Commission to the contrary is reviewable as a conclusion of law.</p> <p>Whether the order of the Commission was invalid because requiring the Railroad Company to supply cars for movement over other lines, or because of being non-administrative, or uncertain and indefinite— not
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- \[W]e must rather suppose its association was intended to confine it to acts or conduct having the same purpose as its associates.\
- “[W]e must rather suppose its association was intended to confine it to acts or conduct having the same purpose as its associates.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McKenna, After Stating the Case as Above
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.