Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/271/124/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:57:11+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 271 › New York Central R. Co. v. New York & Pa. Co.
New York Central Railroad Company v.
1. The provision of the Transportation Act, 1920, § 208a, forbidding reductions of rates during six months following termination of federal control unless approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission was applicable to intrastate rates, was valid as so applied, and included indirect reductions through reparation orders attempted by state authority. P. 271 U. S. 125.
2. Whether a federal right was lost by failure to comply with state procedure is open to reexamination by this Court on review of a state court's judgment. P. 271 U. S. 126.
an earlier order in which the Commission held the rate unreasonable and announced that, upon presentation of a petition with supporting data, it would grant reparation. P. 271 U. S. 126.
Certiorari to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania which affirmed a judgment enforcing an order of reparation granted by the Public Service Commission of Pennsylvania to the respondent against the railroad and based on alleged excess charges paid by the respondent for the transportation of coal. Writ of error dismissed and certiorari allowed.
concerned being the period during which the United States guaranteed certain income to the railroads by § 209. The Interstate Commerce Commission has not approved any reduction, and therefore it is plain that the State Commission had no authority to intermeddle with the rates that it undertook to cut down. It is true that regulating rates and awarding reparation are different matters. But the prohibition in the statute covers either method of reducing the pay received by the roads. The language of the statute and the reasons for the enactment too clearly apply to intrastate, as well as to interstate, rates to admit debate. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Boone, 270 U. S. 466. Whether the rates were right, or were wrong as the state Court thinks, they could be changed only in one way.
It may be that some of the questions before us would be proper matters for a writ of error, but as the rights asserted under the statute of the United States are more fully open upon a writ of certiorari, we shall consider the case upon the last mentioned writ.
The state courts were of opinion that the plaintiffs in error had waived their rights by their failure to appeal from a decision on an earlier complaint to the State Commission in which that Commission held that a lower rate was reasonable and stated that, upon presentation of a petition accompanied by the supporting data, reparation would be awarded for freight charges paid in excess of the rates thus fixed. Whether the federal rights asserted were lost in this way is open to examination here. Creswill v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias, 225 U. S. 246; Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17, 253 U. S. 22; Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U. S. 22, 263 U. S. 24.
court, they are not too late to argue it here. There was no order in the former hearing before the State Commission that the railroads could have brought before us. This is the first moment when they have had a chance to raise what we regard as a perfectly clear point, as it is the first moment when their rights have been infringed. There now is an order which is in the teeth of the statute. It would not be reasonable to hold that they are precluded from getting the protection that this Court owes them by their having failed to go as far as they now learn that they might have gone in a previous state proceeding which did not infringe their rights and which could not be brought here.
"The judgment under review was the only final judgment . . . from which plaintiff in error could prosecute a writ of error, and until such final judgment, the case could not have been brought here for review."
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207, 213 U. S. 214; Smith v. McCullough, 270 U. S. 456.
MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

References: v. 
 v.

 § 208
 § 209
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.