Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/193/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:02:43+00:00

Document:
1. By long usage and under § 15(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act, the unloading into pens of ordinary livestock consigned in carload lots to the Chicago stockyards is a transportation service to be performed by the carrier without extra charge to the shipper or consignee. P. 295 U. S. 198.
2. The boundary between the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards Act, with respect to livestock consigned to public stockyards, is where the transportation ends. P. 295 U. S. 201.
3. A consignee of livestock, upon receiving cattle unloaded from the cars into the unloading pens, drove them over the property of the stockyards company, including a viaduct, directly into the consignee's plant. The Interstate Commerce Commission ruled that a yardage charge for use of the stockyards facilities was unlawful, and ordered the carriers and the Yards Company to desist from exacting it, but no definite finding was made as to what constituted complete delivery or where transportation ended. Held that the order was invalid for want of basic findings. P. 295 U. S. 201.
4. This Court will not search the record to ascertain whether, by use of what there may be found, general and ambiguous statements in the report, intended to serve as findings, may by construction be given a meaning sufficiently definite and certain to constitute a valid basis for the order. P. 295 U. S. 201.
5. Lack of express finding by an administrative agency may not be supplied by implication. P. 295 U. S. 202.
Appeals from a decree of the District Court, constituted of three judges, dismissing a suit to enjoin enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
These are separate appeals from a decree of a three-judge court dismissing a suit to enjoin enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 8 F.Supp. 825. The suit was brought by twenty-four railroads, appellants in No. 606, for convenience called "carriers," against the United States and Interstate Commerce Commission. Twenty-one are line carriers, the other three perform only switching service. The Union Stock Yard & Transit Company, appellant in No. 607, and the Hygrade Food Products Corporation, the complainant before the Commission and one of the appellees here, intervened.
its packing plant. And it assailed as inapplicable the yardage charge collected by the Yards Company on livestock delivered at the stockyards. It claims that the service covered by the charge is included in transportation, §§ 1(3), 15(5); that, not being specified in carriers' tariffs, they are unlawful, § 6, and that the practice of the carriers and Yards Company in making the stockyards their depot for delivery of livestock pursuant to an arrangement by which the Yards Company imposes a yardage charge is an unjust and unreasonable practice in violation of § 1.
Subject to regulation by the Secretary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stockyards Act 1921, 42 Stat. 159, 7 U.S.C. c. 9, the Yards Company operates public stockyards in Chicago. The Hygrade Company, in 1929, acquired and has since operated a packing plant that many years ago was established on the Chicago Junction Railway a short distance from the unloading pens in the stockyards. Tracks of the Junction Railway extend into, and are used to haul dead freight to and from, the Hygrade plant. The charge for switching livestock into the plant is $12 per car. To avoid that burden, the Hygrade Company elects, as did its predecessors, to have all livestock intended for slaughter at the plant shipped to the stockyards. These yards are livestock terminals of the carriers, and are served by trains operated by them over the tracks of the Junction Railway. Each carrier's tariff specifies rates covering transportation of livestock to Chicago, including delivery to consignee on the carrier's own line. But, as practically all shipments to Chicago are consigned to the public stockyards, there is little, if any, need or use of individual carrier unloading facilities.
the amount, $1 per car, specified in its tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. That work is accomplished by means of platforms and chutes down which the animals are driven from the cars into pens. These pens are not suitable places in which long to hold livestock. At peak periods of stock train arrivals, these facilities are so much in use that the Yards Company is able to permit the animals to remain in the unloading pens only a short time, often not more than a few minutes. And, unless promptly taken away by consignee, the Yards Company transfers them to holding pens.
collects the total, accounts to the carriers for those covered by their tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and retains the balance.
The report of the Commission (195 I.C.C. 553) states: the stockyards are livestock terminals of the carriers. Consignees are entitled to delivery at suitable pens without charge for the mere placement therein of the livestock. The unloading pens are suitable for the accomplishment of proper delivery to consignee. The method of handling is efficient and satisfactory. The fact that the carriers have, at Chicago destinations, other places of delivery where no charge is made is not a legally sufficient reason for an extra charge at the stockyards. As to about 15 percent of all shipments consigned to complainant, "it has taken delivery before the animals were placed in holding pens." There is no occasion for putting them in holding pens if prompt delivery is desired. The fact that other freight is subject to storage or demurrage charges only after the lapse of considerable time is not a sufficient reason why similar rules should apply in respect of yardage charges on livestock. After unloading, livestock requires unusual attention and care such as is not required by other freight.
The Commission concluded: the switching charge is not shown to be unreasonable, or otherwise unlawful.
Prompt delivery does not require pens to be so equipped as to provide rest, feed, and water for livestock. If placement into pens that are so equipped is desired, an extra charge therefor is not within the inhibition of § 15.
There are no services performed after unloading for which defendants may assess charges in instances where delivery is taken at the unloading pens. The livestock in carloads consigned to complainant at the yards is not subject to yardage charges in instances where delivery is so taken. Complainant is entitled to reparation.
complainant to payment of yardage charges on livestock, in instances where delivery is taken at the unloading pens, and that the proceeding may be reopened to ascertain the amount of reparation.
Appellants contend that transportation ends with unloading of livestock into suitable pens, and that, for lack of essential findings of fact, the order is void.
Transportation of ordinary livestock in carload lots from and to points other than public stockyards has always been deemed to include furnishing of facilities at the place of shipment for loading and at destination for unloading and suitable ways for convenient ingress and egress. Covington Stock-Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 139 U. S. 134-135; Erie R. Co. v. Shuart, 250 U. S. 465, 250 U. S. 468; 2 Hutchinson, Carriers (3d Ed.) § 510. Cf. Norfolk & W. Ry. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 265 U. S. 70, 265 U. S. 74. And, in the absence of understanding or agreement to the contrary, transportation includes loading and unloading. 4 Elliott, Railroads (3d Ed.) § 2346; Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Benadum, 42 Ind.App. 121, 123, 83 N.E. 261; Davis v. Simmons, 240 S.W. 970, 976; Massey v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 200 S.W. 409, 410; Benson v. Gray, 154 Mass. 391, 394, 28 N.E. 275.
is assumed by a lawful tariff provision."
There is here involved no question as to the adequacy of individual carriers' unloading or other facilities for the delivery of livestock. The Hygrade Company did not seek, and the Commission did not grant, relief upon the ground that the carriers failed to provide egress from the unloading pens in the public stockyards to the city streets by means of which consignee's animals might be removed to its plant. Consignee sought free delivery in cars switched into its plant, but the Commission found the switching charge not unreasonable. Consignee also sought free use of the Yards Company's properties, including the overhead runway, to take its animals from holding pens, as well as from unloading pens, to its plant. The Commission held against it as to the first, and in its favor as to the other, of these demands.
route via the overhead runway to the Hygrade plant distinguishes the use of the Yards Company's properties for this service from mere egress such as is included in transportation of livestock to destinations other than public yards. Plainly there is an essential difference between the route from unloading pens to consignee's plant and a mere way out to the public highways. Transportation does not include delivery within the Hygrade plant or the furnishing of the properties, overhead runway and all, that are used for that purpose. Usage and physical conditions combined definitely to end transportation, at least in respect of these shipments, with unloading into suitable pens as is now required by § 15(5). Like the railroads, public stockyards are public utilities subject to regulation in respect of services and charges. The statutes cited clearly disclose intention that jurisdiction of the Secretary shall not overlap that of the Commission. The boundary is the place where transportation ends.
constitute a valid basis for the order. In the absence of a finding of essential basic facts, the order cannot be sustained. Florida v. United States, 282 U. S. 194, 282 U. S. 215. Recently this Court has repelled the suggestion that lack of express finding by an administrative agency may be supplied by implication. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, 293 U. S. 433. See Beaumont, S.L. & W. Ry. v. United States, 282 U. S. 74, 282 U. S. 86; Interstate Commerce Comm'n v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 186 U. S. 320, 186 U. S. 341.
* Together with No. 607, Union Stock Yard Transit Co. v. United States, et al. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
They include: feed and feeding, bedding, dipping, and spraying, immunizing, and incidental care of swine, cattle testing, cleaning and disinfecting of pens, etc., branding, and other special services.
"Transportation wholly by railroad of ordinary livestock in carload lots destined to or received at public stockyards shall include all necessary service of unloading and reloading en route, delivery at public stockyards of inbound shipments into suitable pens, and receipt and loading at such yards of outbound shipments, without extra charge therefor to the shipper, consignee or owner, except in cases where the unloading or reloading en route is at the request of the shipper, consignee or owner, or to try an intermediate market, or to comply with quarantine regulations. The commission may prescribe or approve just and reasonable rules governing each of such excepted services. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to affect the duties and liabilities of the carriers now existing by virtue of law respecting the transportation of other than ordinary livestock, or the duty of performing service as to shipments other than those to or from public stockyards."
"The term 'stockyard services' means services or facilities furnished at a stockyard in connection with the receiving, buying or selling on a commission basis or otherwise, marketing, feeding, watering, holding, delivery, shipment, weighing, or handling in commerce, of livestock."
"Nothing in this Act shall affect the power or jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission, nor confer upon the Secretary concurrent power or jurisdiction over any matter within the power or jurisdiction of such Commission."
The Interstate Commerce Commission found that the stockyards are the livestock terminals of the carriers; that a "yardage charge" per animal is assessed on all shipments of livestock delivered by the carriers at the stockyards; that the charge is imposed whether the livestock is taken by the consignee directly from the unloading pens or from the holding pens, to which the animals are taken if not immediately removed by the consignee upon arrival, and that appellee removes about 15 percent of all shipments consigned to it directly from the unloading pens. Upon the basis of these findings, the Commission concluded that the yardage charge upon livestock removed from the holding pens is proper, but that the charge is improper and unlawful when made upon livestock received by the consignee and removed immediately upon arrival from the unloading pens and the yards.
the charge is lawful and whether the Commission has jurisdiction to forbid it. The precise point in space at which delivery is complete, or where transportation ends, is immaterial. For, whether it ends when the cattle are placed in the unloading pens or only when the consignee removes the livestock from the terminal, the questions remain whether a charge levied upon the privilege of removal from the carriers' terminal is lawful, and whether, in any case, the Commission has jurisdiction.
It appears that appellee drives the livestock to its place of business, in part over a viaduct, belonging to the stockyards, and in part through a tunnel, the ownership of which does not appear. But the order of the Commission does not require the use of either the viaduct or the tunnel for that purpose, or forbid a charge for their use. It only forbids yardage charges "where delivery was or is taken at the unloading pens." Appellants are thus left free, after removing the condemned charge, to provide any reasonable means of free access to the stockyards terminal for the purpose of proper removal of the livestock from the unloading pens. See Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 501, 283 U. S. 513; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Ry. Co. v. United States, 270 U. S. 287, 270 U. S. 292-293.
U.S. 128, 139 U. S. 135, in declaring unreasonable and unlawful any charge for delivery and prompt receipt of the livestock, made by a company whose stockyards had been designated by the rail carrier as its delivery station.
"terminal facilities of every kind used or necessary in the transportation of the persons or property . . . , including all freight depots, yards, and grounds, used or necessary in the transportation or delivery of any such property,"
"all instrumentalities and facilities of shipment or carriage, irrespective of ownership or of any contract, express or implied, for the use thereof, and all services in connection with the receipt, delivery . . . and handling of property transported."
and subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. Southern Railway v. Prescott, 240 U. S. 632, 240 U. S. 637; Cleveland, C., C. & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Dettlebach, 239 U. S. 588.
This duty of the carrier, and the jurisdiction of the Commission to compel the performance of it, were recently recognized and reaffirmed by this Court in Adams v. Mills, 286 U. S. 397, 286 U. S. 409-415, upholding a reparation award by the Commission against the carrier and the Chicago Stock Yards for an unloading charge not absorbed by the carrier or included in its schedule of tariffs. It was held that the yards used by the carrier as a place of delivery were terminals of the railroad company regardless of their ownership, see Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. United States, supra, 283 U. S. 513, that unloading the livestock was a transportation service for which no charge could be made which was not designated in the filed tariffs, and that the Commission had jurisdiction to forbid the unlawful practice and to order reparations for the overcharge. See also Cleveland, C., C. & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Dettlebach, supra; Southern Railway Co. v. Prescott, supra.
"all necessary service of unloading and . . . delivery at public stockyards of inbound shipments into suitable pens . . . without extra charge therefor to the shipper, consignee or owner. . . ."
It is said that this legislation, by requiring the carrier to deliver the livestock into suitable pens and by prohibiting any extra charge for all necessary service of unloading the livestock, has left the carriers and the stockyards company, acting together or independently, free to charge the consignee or owner a toll for the privilege of removing his livestock from the stockyard terminal of the carriers.
In view of the consistent policy of the law, and the persistent but unsuccessful efforts of carriers and stockyards to impose forbidden charges for carrier service attending the unloading and delivery of the livestock, it would seem that the words, "all necessary service of unloading and . . . delivery" of livestock at a stockyard might fairly be taken to include all those incidental services at a terminal which the carrier is bound to render for its scheduled tariff, and that "suitable pens" to which the carrier must make the delivery must at least be taken to mean pens to which the consignees may gain unimpeded access for the purpose of removing their stock. But if such is not the meaning of its language, and the statute speaks only of delivery of the livestock into the pens capable of holding them, it is difficult to see upon what principle of statutory construction it can be said that the section, by forbidding one unlawful practice, sanctions another which it does not mention. Its purpose was remedial, to remove an old evil, and not to sanction a crop of new ones by giving stockyards and rail carriers of livestock carte blanche to impose vexatious charges which for more than thirty years had been condemned by this Court as unlawful.
"that there be one through rate on livestock for the whole services from point of origin to the destination at public stockyards . . . which shall include unloading into suitable pens and delivery therein at such stockyards . . . including such facilities as are necessary or in use for making such delivery."
See Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce on H.R. 4378, House of Representatives, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 139, 141, 874, 875, 881.
the "through rates on livestock should include unloading and other incidental charges." 59 Cong.Rec. 3264. The legislative history, from beginning to end, indicates unmistakably the single purpose to give the Commission authority to remove the very abuses described and forbidden by the Court in the Covington Stock-Yards case. It would be an incongruous result of this legislation if, by forbidding an unlawful charge for putting the livestock into the unloading pens, it had made lawful the same charge for taking it out, and had thus condemned the aggrieved shippers and consignees to the limbo from which they were earnestly striving to escape. An interpretation of a statute leading to an absurd result is to be avoided where reasonably possible, as it plainly is here. See United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354, 271 U. S. 357; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, 190 U. S. 212.
It is true that yardage charges have been imposed by the appellant stockyard for many years. But, as already indicated, the Commission found that the charge is lawful when the livestock is removed from the unloading to the holding pens, as is done with most shipments. It does not appear how long and how extensively the charge has been applied to livestock immediately removed from the unloading pens by the consignees. In any case, long continuance of an unlawful practice can neither excuse nor sanction it. See Merchants' Warehouse Co. v. United States, supra, 283 U. S. 511; Louisville & Nashville Ry. Co. v. United States, 282 U. S. 740, 282 U. S. 750, 282 U. S. 759; American Express Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 522; Los Angeles Switching Case, 234 U. S. 294, 234 U. S. 312-313. I think that the Commission was right, in forbidding the yardage charge as applied to livestock taken by the consignee from the unloading pens, and that its order should be left undisturbed.
directed to both the stockyards and the carriers, or should have been directed to the carriers alone.

References: § 15
 § 6
 § 1
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 § 510
 v. 
 § 2346
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.