Document: 363 U.S. 202 80 S.Ct. 1131 4 L.Ed.2d 1165 PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 451. Argued May 17, 1960. Decided June 13, Mr. Hugh B. Cox, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. George Cochran Doub, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This case involves power District Courts to review Interstate Commerce Commission orders determining reasonableness rates. 2 In 1941 and 1942 United States made 75 shipments iron steel over Pennsylvania Railroad intended export from port New York Great Britain. War conditions prevented exportation York. caused a dispute about applicable transportation charges since had in effect tariffs 'domestic rates' that were higher than 'export rates.' Since goods not exported as planned billed domestic rates which Government paid because required do so by § 322 Transportation Act 1940, 54 Stat. 955, 49 U.S.C. 66, U.S.C.A. 66. Later, under authority same section, General Accounting Office deducted other bills due difference between lower rates, claiming inapplicable, unreasonable unlawful. The then brought this action Court Claims recover amount deducted. 3 Properly relying on our holding v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 59, 62—70, 77 161, 164—168, 126, suspended proceedings enable parties have pass After hearings found reported 'unjust unreasonable' 62 but 'just reasonable' 13. 305 I.C.C. 259, 265. took two steps challenge part order adverse it: (1) it invoked jurisdiction 28 §§ 1336, 1398, 17(9), enjoin set aside order; (2) moved stay its until could upon validity order. objected further asked dismissal or judgment favor. It urged support deprived when filed 1500, declares 'The shall any claim respect plaintiff * has pending court suit process against *.' rejected contention is challenged here. argued motion did require anything be done done, was therefore an advisory only, consequently kind 'order' subject provision law. although compelled submit question Commission, neither nor Commission's determination. agreed with States, accordingly refused order, entered only $1,663.39, held recoverable, instead $7,237.87 claimed. result been bound completely denied judicial We granted certiorari consider denial. 361 922, 291, 239. 5 contends error refuse while reviewed Solicitor concedes here error. reach conclusion basis independent consideration record. decided some years ago mere 'abstract declaration' issue may judicially reviewable, determines 'right obligation' 'legal consequences' will flow reviewable. Rochester Telephone Corp. 307 125, 131, 132, 143, 59 754, 757, 763, 83 L.Ed. 1147. record shows meets standard. Railroad's 'unreasonable' shipments. no means 'advisory opinion,' are obvious, if valid forecloses 'right' those equally available whether relates past future proceeding follows referral originates Commission. El Dorado Oil Works 328 12, 66 843, 90 1053. 6 For these reasons we conclude entitled reviewed. already determined, however, such cannot exercised Claims. Jones, 336 641, 651—653, 670—671, 69 787, 793—794, 802, 93 938. That vested exclusively Courts. 17(9). See Seaboard Air Line Co. Daniel, 333 118, 122, 68 426, 428, 92 580. Moreover, properly reviewable one-judge rather three-judge essentially one 'for payment money' within terms 2321 2325, 2321, exempt procedure 2284, 2284. Comm., 337 441, 443, 1410, 1418, 1419, 1451. necessarily follows, course, right reviewed, it, duty review. 7 Other questions presented 8 render without suspending await determination 9 Reversed.

Category: 8