Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/276/104/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 07:03:45
Document Index: 202039852

Matched Legal Cases: ['arte 74', '§ 15', '§ 1', '§ 15', '§ 15', 'arte 74']

Appellant seeks annulment of an Interstate Commerce Commission order, entered December 14, 1925, which designated the divisions it might thereafter receive from chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 15(3) provides that "the Commission may, and it shall whenever deemed by it to be necessary or desirable in the public interest, after full hearing," establish joint chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In Ex parte 74, the Commission considered applications under § 15a, [Footnote 2] Transportation Act 1920, for authority generally to increase rates so that carriers as a whole might earn a fair return. It found (July 29, 1920, 58 I.C.C. 220, 246, 245): chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the Matter of Reduced Rates (May 16, 1922, 68 I.C.C. 676) -- instituted to determine whether further general reductions might be required under § 1, also what would constitute fair return under § 15a(3), after referring to the authorized increases of 1920, the Commission found that 5.75 percentum would be fair thereafter, and would result if formerly authorized rates were reduced by specified percentages. The order was that carriers should promptly report "whether the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
March 10, 1924, a second report and order prescribed what the Brimstone Company might thereafter receive chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Counsel suggest that, in addition to facts revealed by studies of the Brimstone Company's affairs, the Commission did consider existing division sheets of joint rates, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the second case, the Commission undertook to modify existing divisions for the benefit of a weak road. It did not appear that any matters consideration of which was required by § 15(6), Transportation Act 1920, had been ignored, but the evidence concerning some of these things had not been properly presented, and therefore the order was annulled. It was there said: (274) "Relative cost of service is not the only factor to be considered in determining just divisions." (291) "The power conferred by Congress on the Commission is that of determining, in respect to each joint rate, what divisions chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Prior to 1920, the Interstate Commerce Act contained the following provisions concerning the readjustments of divisions of rates determined and prescribed by the Commission: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 15(6) should be construed in the light of the recognized difficulties. Under the earlier act, a clear distinction was made between joint rates "agreed upon" and those "determined and prescribed" by the Commission after full hearing "to be thereafter observed." The Commission had power to declare proper divisions of those in the latter category by order "which shall take effect as part of the original order" -- that is, from the date the rate was prescribed. Whether it could determine divisions of agreed rates for the future was not clear, but certainly it could not require readjustments of divisions of such rates for past periods. Morgantown & Kingwood Divisions, 40 I.C.C. 509; 49 I.C.C. 540, 551. Section 15(6) established the right to prescribe future divisions of agreed rates, but we think the studied purpose was to grant no power to require readjustments of past receipts from agreed joint rates. Theretofore, power in respect of past divisions existed only when rates had been determined and prescribed after full hearing -- that is, where the Commission had passed upon the reasonableness of the rate and required observance. Obviously a carrier may have chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The power to require readjustments for the past is drastic. It may reasonably exist in cases where the particular rate has been approved by the Commission after full hearing; it ought not to be extended so as to permit unreasonably harsh action without very plain words. The general findings and permission of Ex parte 74 and Matter of Reduced Rates did not approve or fix any particular rate and certainly did not determine and prescribe the rates divisions of which are here under consideration. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary