Document: 333 U.S. 118 68 S.Ct. 426 92 L.Ed. 580 SEABOARD AIR LINE R. CO.v.DANIEL, Attorney General of South Carolina, et al. No. 390. Argued Jan. 8, 1948. Decided Feb. 16, Appeal from the Supreme Court State Carolina. Mr. W. C. Cocke, Norfolk, Va., for appellant. Irvine F. Belser, Columbia, S.C., appellees. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 The constitution and statutes Carolina provide that railroad lines within state can be owned operated only by created corporations; a corporation chartered under laws another is forbidden heavy penalties to exercise such powers Carolina.1 There way, however, in which foreign may, statutes, indirectly some over its operations. It may organize Subsidiary. In addition, it law, consolidate with itself. event, so far as govern, consolidated result would both state.2 2 1946 appellant, Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company, approval Interstate Commerce Commission, succeeded ownership operation unitary system 4,200 railway miles six southern states. Seven hundred thirty-six traverse Connecting adjoining Appellant Virginia corporation, has no subsidiary, effected consolidation corporation. therefore subject provided law if validly applied it. 3 This action was brought appellant enjoin attorney general attempting collect statutory or enforce provisions against it.3 complaint alleged following facts, about there substantial dispute. Commission purchase pursuant § 5 Act, amended, 49 U.S.C. 5, U.S.C.A. 5. After notice Governor others, conducted hearings made report found compliance 'substantial delay needless expense.' further 'would not consistent public interest'—the criterion required use passing upon change control railroad. then entered an order authorized own operate entire including mileage. also asserted order, explicit reference finding report, affirmatively without complying laws.4 4 answer did challenge constitutional power Congress relieve Carolina's requirements incorporation. took position insofar could interpreted attempt override this respect void because outside scope Commission's authority. filed demurrer on ground matter constituted neither defense nor counterclaim since admitted all allegations fact complaint, advanced nothing more than erroneous legal conclusions reasons why should granted relief prayed. No evidence taken decided case pleadings. That court construed relieving issue, but agreed respondents lacked enter order. Accordingly revoked temporary restraining had previously issued, denied requested injunction, dismissed complaint. 43 S.E.2d 839. properly here appeal 237(a) Judicial Code, 28 344(a), 344(a). 6 First. largely relied basis sought. questioned validity seek decree set aside suspend Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction suits enjoin, aside, annul Commission. United States indispensable Party. 46, 46. Although conceded, challenged, we think appropriate pass 7 So appellant's concerned, kind 'set aside' federal jurisdiction. While does involve removal obstruction railroad's obedience suspension annulment. Nor enforcement enjoined, although question sought 8 dilemma. obey long remained effect; failure abide terms serious fedr al imposed §§ 10(1), 16(7), (8), (9), (10), 16(7—10). On other hand, officials were enforceable despite thus bona fide controversy between wanted order; insisted must their instead. been special review confirm orders at suit railroads wishing orders. 9 Under foregoing circumstances compelled wait until one who standing attack might decide annulment court. obtain parties whose refusal recognize gave rise predicament. And power, issues raised requested, determine whether interpreted, exempt and, so, transcended authority making Illinois Cent. Co. v. Public Utilities 245 493, 502 505, 38 170, 173, 174, 62 425. See Lambert Run Coal Baltimore & Ohio Co., 258 377, 381, 382, 42 349, 350, 351, 66 671; Central New England Boston A.R. 279 415, 420, 421, 358, 359, 360, 73 770. 10 Second. contended manifest clear purpose authorize exemption state's domestic policy. We doubt intended effect. Its final expressly stated that, condition relevant, approved 'the * operation' properties. Furthermore, discussed therein findings them interest.' These references provisions, according response suggestion 'avoid complications' showed 'on face our them.' 11 Third. Respondents contend permit these through contrary legislative They point broad states always exercised excluding corporations admitting borders conditions. emphasize importance regulatory states, urge absence express language requiring it, restrict enactments. Recognizing force arguments general, note render inapplicable case. 12 maintenance development economical efficient primary national concern. legislation read mind. keeping often recognized nation's sound corporate financial structures steps end. very resulted extensive reorganization proceedings Cm merce accordance congressional enactments applicable railroads. furtherance policy agencies plans called properties, portion 13 proceeding analogous here. Texas States, 1934, 292 522, 54 819, 78 1402. Most justified are equally given additional proof grant adequate interfere operation. By 5(11) Act 1940, Stat. 908, 5(11), 'exclusive plenary' refusing approving consolidations, mergers, acquisitions, etc. breadth understood 5(2)(b) authorizes 'such conditions modifications shall find just reasonable.' All what 'consistent purchaser property 'to any properties acquired said transaction invoking authority,' owner, paragraph, 'relieved antitrust restraints, limitations, prohibitions Federal, State, municipal, necessary enable carry into effect hold, maintain, transaction.' 14 clearly reposes bar operating impose nevertheless thought last sentence negatived empower Carolina's. reads: 'Nothing section create creation, directly indirectly, carrier deemed addition modification charter State.' see detracts fact, appears support exercised. bars creation above those bestowed creation. federally conferred same manner though they California Pacific 127 1, 38, 40—45, 1073, 1079—1083, 32 150. Here, purposes state. 15 Other respondent considered merit. entitled injunction 16 judgment denying dismissing complan t reversed, cause remanded inconsistent opinion. 17 Reversed remanded. S.C.Const. Art. 9, 8; S.C.C.ode Ann. 7784 (1942). Violations punishable fines $500 each county operates. Apparently day's constitutes separate offense. operates 30 counties. S.C.Code 7777, 7778, 7779, 7785, 7789 Geraty Atlantic Coast 80 S.C. 355, 361, 60 S.E. 936, 937. prayed mandamus compel Secretary accept file papers documents tendered seeking do business statutes. phase pressed alleged, argued here, burdens interstate violation Clause Constitution cl. 3. view take makes unnecessary us contention.

Category: 7