Loomis v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs in error have long been shippers of grain and produce over the line of defendant carrier from Victor and other stations in Western New York. From time to time during a period beginning in August, 1906,' and ending

Payment of the amount so expended was demanded by plaintiffs and refused. Without preliminary resort to the Interstate Commerce Commission, they then brought this action in a state court upon the theory that the carrier having failed to perform its common-law duty to furnish adequate cars, they were entitled to recover as damages their consequent outlay. Defendant denied liability and further’ challenged the court’s jurisdiction over claims incident to interstate shipments because: It was and remains an interstate carrier subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce as amended and supplemented as well as the act of Congress passed February 19, 1903, known as the Elkins Act, etc.; it had filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission the tariffs under which such shipments were made; these tariffs fixed rates for transportation only and did not provide for payments or allowances, for grain, doors, bulkheads, or lumber for

The Court of Appeals held that the common law imposed upon the railroads the duty of furnishing cars equipped with inside doors, or bulkheads for transporting grain or provisions in bulk and unless local or Federal statutes had established different rules plaintiffs were entitled to recover. Having considered the statutes, it concluded the local act created no bar to recovery on account of the intrastate shipments, but that Congress had assumed such control over interstate shipments as to deprive the state courts of power to consider claims arising out of them. 208 N. Y. 312 . The judgment of the Appellate Division in favor of plaintiffs for total cost of material supplied by them was modified accordingly and the record and proceedings remitted to the Supreme' Court, Ontario County. This writ of error was then sued out to obtain a review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, being addressed to the Supreme Court because the record was in its possession. Shanks v. Del., Lack. & West. R. R., 239 U. S. 556 .

No serious dispute exists concerning the facts. The applicable duly-filed interstate rate schedules made no reference to allowances for grain doors or bulkheads, and the circumstances under which these were installed, together with their cost, are not controverted. Whether there was jurisdiction in the state court to pass upon the carrier’s liability incident to the interstate traffic, is the sole point demanding consideration.

The effect of the Act to Regulate Commerce, as supplemented and amended, upon the jurisdiction of courts, has been expounded in many cases heretofore decided. Tex. & Pac. Ry. v. Abilene Cotton Co., 204 U. S. 426 ; Balt; & Ohio R: R. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481 ; Robinson v. Balt. & Ohio R, R., 222 U. S. 506 ; Mitchell

Speaking through Mr. Justice Lamar in Mitchell Coal Co. v. Penna. R. R., supra, we said (p. 255): “The courts have not been' given jurisdiction to fix rates or practices in direct proceedings, nor can they do so collaterally during the progress of a lawsuit when the action is based on the claim that unreasonable allowances have been paid. If the decision of such questions was committed to different courts with different juries the results would not only vary in degree, bút might" often be opposite in character— to the destruction of the uniformity in rate and practice which was the cardinal object of the statute.”

In the Minnesota Rate Cases, supra, we further said (p. 419): “The dominating purpose of the statute was to secure conformity to the prescribed standards through the examination and appreciation of the complex' facts of transportation by the body created for that purpose; and, as this court has repeatedly held, it would be destructive of the system of regulation defined by the statute if the court without the preliminary action of the Commission were to undertake to pass upon the administrative questions -which the statute has primarily confided to it.”

And in Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. American Tie Co., supra, the rule was thus stated (p. 146): “It is equally clear that the controversy as to whether the lumber tariff included crossties was one primarily to be determined by the Commission in the exercise of its power concerning tariffs and the authority to regulate conferred upon it by the statuté. Indeed, we think it is indisputable that that subject is directly controlled by the authorities which establish that‘for the preservation of the uniformity which

An adequate consideration of the present controversy would require acquaintance with many intricate facts of transportation and a consequent appreciation of the practical effect of any attempt to define services covered by a carrier’s published tariffs, or character of equipment which it must provide, or allowances which it may make to shippers for instrumentalities' supplied and services rendered.- In the last .analysis the instant cause presents a problem which directly concerns rate-making and is pecúliarly administrative. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. United States, 232 U. S. 199 , 220. And the preservation of uniformity and prevention of discrimination render essential some appropriate ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission before it may be submitted to a court. See Penna. R. R. v. Puritan Coal Co., supra, pp. 128, 129; Penna. R. R. v. Clark Coal Co., supra, pp. 469, 470.

If in respect of interstate business the courts' of New York may determine, as original matters, rate-making problems, those in other States have like jurisdiction; The uncertainty and confusion which would necessarily result, is manifest. Ample authority has been given the Commission, in circumstances like those here shown, to administer proper relief, and in connection therewith to approve some general rule of action. In so doing it would effectuate the great purpose for which the statute was enacted. •

On June 1, 1908, before this proceeding was begun, the Interstate Commerce Commission ruled: “A carrier may not lawfully reimburse shippers for the expense incurred in attaching grain doors to box cars unless expressly so provided in its tariff.” (Conference Ruling No. 78.) In National Lumber. Ass’n v. Railroad, 14 I. C. C. 154 ,

We find no error in the judgment below and it is

Affirmed.