San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1890-12-05
INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAW.

Judge Monroe Decides that State
NEW ORLEANS, La, Dec. 5.-On
Friday last an important exception
was tried in Judge Monroe's division
of the Civil District Court, growing
out of the institution of suit by F.
T. Copp against the Louisville and
Nashville railroad, claiming damages
for alleged determinations against
him in freight rates, under the inter-
state commerce act.
The exception was to the jurisdic-
ton of the court. Col. Bayne, of the
firm of Bayne, Denegre Il Bayne,
maintaining that under the act in
question the United States courts are
vested with exclusive jurisdiction in
such cases.
1t is the first time a suit of this kind
has been brought in a State court.
The following is the decision, with
the views of Judge Monroe upon the
case:
This is suit for damages for al
legged unlawful discrimination by the
defendant company against the plain
tiff with respect to rates on coal re-
ceived from Alabama since 1887.
The damages claimed are such as
are contemplated and provided for
by the act of Congress, known as the
interstate commerce act, as amended.
The defendant company excerpts
that this court is without jurisdiction
ratione materie, claiming that, under
the act in question, jurisdiction in
such cases is vested exclusively in
the courts of the United States.
The general rule with respect to the
question Of jurisdiction as between
the State and Federal courts is stat
ed by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the following language to wi {:
"a legal or equitable right acquir-
ed under State law may be prosecut-
ed in the State courts, and also, If
the parties reside in different states,
in the Federal courts. So, rights,
whether legal or equitable, acquired
under the laws of the United States,
may be prosecuted In the United
States courts, or in the States courts,
competent to decide rights of the like
character and class, subject, however,
to this qualification, that where a
right arises under law of the
United States Congress may, if it sees
fit, give to the Federal courts ex-
elusive jurisdiction This jurisdic.
ton is sometimes exclusive by express
meut and sometimes by implication.
If an act of Congress gives a penalty
to party aggrieved without specify
ing a remedy for its enforcement,
there is no reason why it should not
be enforced, if not provided otherwise
by some act of Congress, by a proper
action in a State court" Claim VS..
Houseman, assignee, SO L. S., 1867.
In the case at bar the same act
which gives the right also provides
a remedy. Thus section of said act
provides.
THAT any person or persons claim
ing to be damaged by any common
carrier, subject to the provisions of
this act, may either make complaint
to the commission as hereinafter pro-
vided for, or may bring suit in his or
her own behalf for the recovery of the
damages for which such common car
rier may be liable under the provis-
ions of this act, in any district or cir
cult court of the United states of COM
petent Jurisdiction; but such person
or persons shall not have the right to
pursue both of said remedies, and
must in such case elect which one of
the two methods of procedure herein
provided for he or they will adopt"
The general rule is that when a
particular remedy it provided by law,
such remedy must be sought to the
exclusion of all others, in cases con-
templated by the statute, and this
rule, it seems to me, must necessarily
be applied in this instance. Other
wise person claiming injury under
the act of Congress, instead of being
to select which one of the
two methods of procedure provided
for by the act he will adopt, will be
afforded third alternative not con-
or provided for by said act,
and this in violation of it's express
terms whereby he is limited to a
choice between two remedies.
Considering the provisions of the
act thus referred to, together with
other provisions which need not be
mentioned, my conclusion
Is that while the jurisdiction of the
Federal courts is not made exclusive
by express language it results from
not only from the lam
guage which has been quoted, but
from all the provisions of the statue
5aken together.
The exception should therefore be
and this suit dismissed at
cost.
Southern Quarantine Stations
Wy cryr>-rrnN nonap,har E-nr |