Document: 355 U.S. 415 78 S.Ct. 421 2 L.Ed.2d 374 ALLEGHANY CORPORATION, appellant,v.BRESWICK & CO., Randolph Phillips and Myron Neisloss, as Common Stockholders of Alleghany Corporation. No. 616. Joseph S. GRUSS, Charles H. Blatt, Albert B. Cohen, et al., appellants, v. BRESWICK Corporation, etc. 617. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, appellant, CO. al. 618. Supreme Court the United States January 27, 1958 Messrs. Whitney North Seymour, David Hartfield, Jr. Edward K. Wheeler, for appellant Mr. M. Garlock, appellants Baker, Weeks Co. others. Harold Levin, Proskauer, Marvin E. Frankel Allen L. Feinstein, Gruss Robert W. Ginnane, Interstate Commerce Commission. George Brussel, Jr., appellees Breswick PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment District is reversed case remanded consideration by that court only claim was left open at this Court's prior disposition litigation, to wit, whether 'the preferred stock issue approved [Interstate Commerce] Commission in violation Act.' Corp. Co., 353 151, 175, 77 763, 726. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK concur, dissents. 3 These cases are a sequel Corporation 763. There, decision further proceedings. Now, on remand being summarily ground basis below precluded mandate opinion Court. For reasons which follow, it my probable jurisdiction should be noted these cases. 4 First. I do not agree went beyond scope 5 acquired control New York Central Railroad parent an integrated system carriers. Subsequent acquisition Alleghany, two corporate subsidiaries were merged. basically subject Securities Exchange under Investment Company Act 1940, 54 Stat. 789, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-1 seq., U.S.C.A. seq. Section 3(c)(9) exempts companies regulation question thus arose although carrier term used Act, because merger therefore exempt from supervision determination its but then holding present issue. 6 In order attain status noncarrier must satisfy requirements 5(2)(a) Act. pertinent portions section provide: 7 'It shall lawful, approval authorization * (i) person acquire or more carriers through ownership their otherwise; has one another otherwise *' 899, 905, 49 5(2)(a), 5(2)(a). 8 operation easily understood if clauses pertaining numbered follows: 9 Clause I. 'A otherwise.' II. 10 It clear least before There may transaction acquiring consecutively Whichever applicable particular facts, 5(2)(b) requires find proposed public interest. 11 held first did have II because, even had carrier, Central, 'acquire carrier' device merging subsidiaries. That also there no Central. D.C., 138 F.Supp. 123. 12 On appeal, reversed. deciding substantive issues litigation,' viz., '* §§ 5(2) 5(3) granting valid. supra, pages 160-161, page 769. based reasoned controlled 'acquired' merger. All satisfied found interest within meaning 5(2)(b). Louisville J. R. Merger, 295 I.C.C. 11, 17. 13 Because could sustained ground, unnecessary decide required 'two carriers' stated: 14 'The contend single, necessary. We need question, however, intimate *.' 161, 770. necessary sustain 16 obtained declaring request stock. Accordingly, 'remanded appellees' claim, previously discussed, Id., 777 [Italics added.] 17 remand, against various attacks basic fairness enjoined approving theory approve Alleghany's approved. U. S., 156 227. 18 premise 5(4) Act,* construed our earlier opinion, made consider legality I, well II, makes 'unlawful' without any 'to enter into scope' 5(2)(a)—whether And 5(7) authorizes investigate determine been violated. 19 Commission, transactions. determined we remand—whether transactions 'in 776. included Alleghany. other words force argument 5(7), cannot say frivolous unsubstantial. 20 This decided conflicting jurisdictional claims governmental agencies precluding Court, see it, can issued. No one, lawyer judge, confused fact facts reason (jurisdiction) (compliance issued). Respect considered well-reasoned three-judge alone convince us definance mandate. 21 Second. Even doubts reasoning, hear merits. argued over properly exercised authorizing issuance such presented earlier. way possible read implication, since nowhere problem mentioned. now forcefully lower court. By reversing appeal substantial resolved sub silentio. 22 5(2)(a)(i) (Clause I) seems plainly one. To repeat, problem. Yet arguable Until case, apparently consistent view As Division 23 'We long recognized 5, railroad systems comprised carriers, single lawfully effectuated authorization. [Citations omitted.] principle basic, almost definition. So much so, never contested far know, decisions touching issue.' 290 725, 733. 24 full held, citation authority, 16-17. courts important question. 25 Moreover, assuming some time, come refinancing approved? shown, illegal until obtained. Under those circumstances said: 26 continued obvious application unless intends would wrongdoer sanctuary Act; ordering acts aid known ultimate crucial result temporizing seemingly innocuous piecemeal applications, unobtrusively foreclose itself realistic fundamental after passage time disruption service, caused divestiture, so great necessarily discarded practical alternative.' 227, 236-237. 27 Did Congress permit broken-field running between statutes, designed protect interest, inquiry primary Alleghany? At very least, rule possible. 28 note provides: unlawful person, except provided paragraph (2), subparagraph (a) thereof, accomplish effectuate, participate accomplishing effectuating, management common however attained, directly indirectly, use directors, officers stockholders, investment company companies, voting trust trusts, manner whatsoever. continue maintain accomplished enactment amendatory provisions. (5), 'control management' include power exercise management.'

Category: 7