Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/259/285/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 07:03:07+00:00

Document:
Timber Co., 234 U. S. 138; Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 240 U. S. 43, and other cases, distinguished.
Certiorari to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirming a judgment for the plaintiff in a suit by the present respondent to recover overcharges from the petitioner Railway Company.
"Diversion or reconsignment to points outside switching limits before placement: if a car is diverted, reconsigned or reforwarded on orders placed with the local freight agent or other designated officer after arrival of car at original destination, but before placement for unloading, . . . a charge of $5.00 per car will be made if car is diverted, reconsigned, or reforwarded to a point outside of switching limits of original destination."
"(a) Grain, seed (field), seed (grass), hay or straw, carloads, held in cars on track for inspection and disposition orders incident thereto at billed destination or at point intermediate thereto."
Whether the charge was payable depended solely upon a question of construction -- that is, whether the body of the rule or the exception to it applied. On this question, there was room for reasonable difference of opinion. The carrier, relying particularly upon Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. American Tie & Timber Co., 234 U. S. 138, and Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 240 U. S. 43, claimed seasonably that, until the true construction of the tariff had been determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the trial court was without jurisdiction. That court overruled the objection, construed the exception to mean that cars of grain are exempted from Rule 10 if held on track at billed destination for inspection and for "disposition orders" incident to such inspection, held that the disposition order may be an order to make disposition by way of reconsignment to another destination, and that forwarding to Anoka was such disposition, and entered judgment for the shipper. That judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state on the authority of Reliance Elevator Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 139 Minn.
69. The case is here on writ of certiorari. Merritt v. United States, 255 U.S. 567. The tariff containing the rule under which the $5 charge was made was the only governing tariff. It had been duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission. The validity of the tariff, including the rule and exception, was admitted, and there was no dispute concerning the facts. The question argued before us is not whether the state courts erred in construing or applying the tariff, but whether any court had jurisdiction of the controversy in view of the fact that the Interstate Commerce Commission had not passed upon the disputed question of construction.
The contention that courts are without jurisdiction of cases involving a disputed question of construction of an interstate tariff unless there has been a preliminary resort to the Commission for its decision rests, in the main, upon the following argument: the purpose of the Act to Regulate Commerce is to secure and preserve uniformity. Hence, the carrier is required to file tariffs establishing uniform rates and charges, and is prohibited from exacting or accepting any payment not set forth in the tariff. Uniformity is impossible if the several courts, state or federal, are permitted, in case of disputed construction, to determine what the rate or charge is which the tariff prescribes. To insure uniformity, the true construction must, in case of dispute, be determined by the Commission.
thereby uniformity in construction may be secured. Hence, the attainment of uniformity does not require that, in every case where the construction of a tariff is in dispute, there shall be a preliminary resort to the Commission.
Whenever a rate, rule, or practice is attacked as unreasonable or as unjustly discriminatory, there must be preliminary resort to the Commission. Sometimes this is required because the function being exercised is in its nature administrative, in contradistinction to judicial. But ordinarily the determining factor is not the character of the function, but the character of the controverted question and the nature of the enquiry necessary for its solution. To determine what rate, rule or practice shall be deemed reasonable for the future is a legislative or administrative function. To determine whether a shipper has in the past been wronged by the exaction of an unreasonable or discriminatory rate is a judicial function. Preliminary resort to the Commission is required alike in the two classes of cases. It is required because the inquiry is essentially one of fact and of discretion in technical matters, and uniformity can be secured only if its determination is left to the Commission. Moreover, that determination is reached ordinarily upon voluminous and conflicting evidence, for the adequate appreciation of which acquaintance with many intricate facts of transportation is indispensable, and such acquaintance is commonly to be found only in a body of experts. But what construction shall be given to a railroad tariff presents ordinarily a question of law which does not differ in character from those presented when the construction of any other document is in dispute.
to determine the meaning of words appearing in the document. This is true where technical words or phrases not commonly understood are employed, or extrinsic evidence may be necessary to establish a usage of trade or locality which attaches provisions not expressed in the language of the instrument. Where such a situation arises, and the peculiar meaning of words, or the existence of a usage, is proved by evidence, the function of construction is necessarily preceded by the determination of the matter of fact. Where the controversy over the writing arises in a case which is being tried before a jury, the decision of the question of fact is left to the jury, with instructions from the court as to how the document shall be construed, if the jury finds that the alleged peculiar meaning or usage is established. [Footnote 1] But where the document to be construed is a tariff of an interstate carrier, and before it can be construed it is necessary to determine upon evidence the peculiar meaning of words or the existence of incidents alleged to be attached by usage to the transaction, the preliminary determination must be made by the Commission, and not until this determination has been made can a court take jurisdiction of the controversy. If this were not so, that uniformity which it is the purpose of the Commerce Act to secure could not be attained. For the effect to be given the tariff might depend not upon construction of the language -- a question of law -- but upon whether or not a particular judge or jury had found, as a fact, that the words of the document were used in the peculiar sense attributed to them or that a particular usage existed.
"If you believe from the evidence that oak railway cross-ties are lumber within the meaning and usage of the lumber and railroad business, then you are charged the defendant had in effect a rate applying on the ties offered for shipment."
"an adequate consideration of the . . . controversy would require acquaintance with many intricate facts of transportation and a consequent appreciation of the practical effect of any attempt to define services covered by a carrier's published tariffs, or character of equipment which it must provide, or allowances which it may make to shippers for instrumentalities supplied and services rendered."
controversies which involve only questions of law and those which involve issues essentially of fact or call for the exercise of administrative discretion, it will be found that the conflict described does not exist, and that the decisions referred to are in harmony also with reason.
Goddard v. Foster, 17 Wall. 123, 84 U. S. 142; Hutchinson v. Bowker, 5 M. & W. 535, 542; Tubbs v. Mechanics' Insurance Co., 131 Iowa, 217; Aetna Indemnity Co. v. Waters, 110 Md. 673; A. J. Tower Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 184 Mass. 472. See Ogden v. Parsons, 23 How. 167, 64 U. S. 170; Fuller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 70 Conn. 647, 677; Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, 203-207, 215, 259.
In the following cases in which the jurisdiction of the court was sustained without preliminary resort to the Commission, the question involved was solely one of construction of a tariff, or otherwise a question of law, and not one of administrative discretion: (1) Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. F. W. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U. S. 70, 223 U. S. 84; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. International Coal Co., 230 U. S. 184, 230 U. S. 196; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Puritan Coal Co., 237 U. S. 121, 237 U. S. 134; Eastern Ry. Co. v. Littlefield, 237 U. S. 140; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Mulberry Coal Co., 238 U. S. 275; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sonman Coal Co., 242 U. S. 120; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Mfg. Co., 253 U. S. 319. See also Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 243 U. S. 281; St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. Hasty, 255 U. S. 252, 255 U. S. 256. (2) Hite v. Central R. Co. of N.J., 171 F. 370, 372; Gimbel Bros., Inc. v. Barrett, 215 F. 1004, 218 F. 880; Barrett v. Gimbel Bros., 226 F. 623; National Elevator Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 246 F. 588; J. C. Francesconi & Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 274 F. 687, 691. Compare Empire Refineries v. Guaranty Trust Co., 271 F. 668. (3) Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Tonn, 102 Ark. 20, 26; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. White Provision Co., 142 Ga. 246; Gustafson v. Michigan Central R. Co., 296 Ill. 41; Wolverine Brass Works v. Southern Pacific Co., 187 Mich. 393; Reliance Elevator Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 139 Minn. 69; St. Louis, San Francisco & Texas Ry. Co. v. Roff Oil & Cotton Co., 61 Tex.Civ.App. 190, 192; Southern Pacific Co. v. Frye, 82 Wash. 9. Compare Hardaway v. Southern Ry. Co., 90 S.C. 475. See contra, Cheney v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 227 Mass. 336. Compare Poor v. Western Union Tel. Co., 196 Mo.App. 557, 564.
In the following cases, where the court refused to take jurisdiction because there had not been preliminary resort to the Commission, the question presented either was one of fact or called for the exercise of administrative discretion: Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481; Mitchell Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247; Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 304; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Solum, 247 U. S. 477, 247 U. S. 483; Director General v. Viscose Co., 254 U. S. 498. See also United States v. Pacific & Arctic Co., 228 U. S. 87.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.