Baltimore & O. R. v. United States

S.D. New York

Baltimore & O. R. v. United States

20 F. Supp. 917, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1501

DecidedAugust 24, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 20 F. Supp. 917 (Baltimore & O. R. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baltimore & O. R. v. United States, 20 F. Supp. 917, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1501 (S.D.N.Y. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

HULBERT, District Judge.

With some misgiving, I concur in the opinion of Circuit Court Judge CHASE whose conclusions are inescapable under the law as it now is.

The voluntary inquiry instituted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, “Ex parte No. 104, Practices of Carriers Affecting Operating Revenues and Expenses,” was upheld, generally, by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, appellants, v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., et al., 301 U.S. 402, 57 S.Ct. 804, 81 L.Ed. —, and particularly with reference to part 2 of that proceeding having to do with terminal services.

The plaintiffs in the case now before this court have published tariffs including the in transit storage as well as the rates of carriage. The Interstate Commerce Commission has found that under the published tariff rates the storage charges at less than cost is a discrimination.

Under the doctrine enunciated in New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U.S. 361, 26 S.Ct. 272, 50 L.Ed. 515, I agree there is no practical distinction between service charges on the basis of cost and reasonable or fair value, but I am apprehensive that the effect thereof will be to substitute the uncertainty of rates in reliance upon business competition for the certainty of published tariff rates, and as a practical result the cost to shippers, and incidentally to the public, may, and probably will, increase, since the warehousemen are not subject to any regulatory authority whatsoever.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HULBERT, District Judge.

With some misgiving, I concur in the opinion of Circuit Court Judge CHASE whose conclusions are inescapable under the law as it now is.

The voluntary inquiry instituted by the Interstate Commerce Commission, “Ex parte No. 104, Practices of Carriers Affecting Operating Revenues and Expenses,” was upheld, generally, by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, appellants, v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., et al., 301 U.S. 402, 57 S.Ct. 804, 81 L.Ed. —, and particularly with reference to part 2 of that proceeding having to do with terminal services.

The plaintiffs in the case now before this court have published tariffs including the in transit storage as well as the rates of carriage. The Interstate Commerce Commission has found that under the published tariff rates the storage charges at less than cost is a discrimination.

Under the doctrine enunciated in New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U.S. 361, 26 S.Ct. 272, 50 L.Ed. 515, I agree there is no practical distinction between service charges on the basis of cost and reasonable or fair value, but I am apprehensive that the effect thereof will be to substitute the uncertainty of rates in reliance upon business competition for the certainty of published tariff rates, and as a practical result the cost to shippers, and incidentally to the public, may, and probably will, increase, since the warehousemen are not subject to any regulatory authority whatsoever.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Supp. 917, 1937 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baltimore-o-r-v-united-states-nysd-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack