Document: 360 U.S. 19 79 S.Ct. 944 3 L.Ed.2d 1054 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant,v.ATLANTIC REFINING COMPANY et al. No. 210. Argued April 22, 1959. Decided June 8, Mr. Robert A. Bicks, Washington, D.C., for the appellant. Messrs. David W. Peck, New York City, and T. Searls, Houston, Tex., appellees. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 The Elkins Act, 32 Stat. 847, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §§ 41, 43, U.S.C.A. Interstate Commerce 24 380, § 6(7), make it unlawful a common carrier to grant rebates individual shippers by any device whatsoever, or discriminate in favor shipper directly indirectly. In 1941 United States brought complaint against appellees several other major oil companies their pipeline subsidiaries claiming that pipelines were granting illegal transportation shipper-owners under guise paying dividends. Although Government charged no dividends at all could lawfully be granted same year which shipper-owner sent products over pipeline, suit was settled late consent decree containing provision allowed shipperowner receive dividend equal 'its share 7 percentum (7%) valuation' pipeline's property. Any excess this figure, however, forbidden.1 That is before us interpretation today. 2 From 1957 computed allowable taking 7% valuation property then giving each owner proportion sum percentage stock owned. 1957, giving, receiving, those decree. did not contest figures used, but argued, despite language decree, only part actually made available stockholders. total 'dividends,' claimed, would have shared between stockholders creditors. stockholder's (shipperowner's) 'share' valuation, so argument ran, stock-investment bore carrier's invested capital (including debt owed third persons). Seven percent stockholder-dividends out sum, distributed its interest. Only way, contended, decree's aim preventing disguised accomplished. For way limited 'fair' sum: current value what had subsidiary. trial court rejected Government's interpretation, direct appeal 823, 15 29, 45, 45. On consideration history we agree with court. If meant limit parent company's actual investment subsidiary, claims, one can hardly think less appropriate couch restriction. Admittedly, reading word refer capitalization rather than owned company, support States' contention.2 But surely strained construction, cannot reconciled consisent given both appellees, from date entered until 1957—about 16 years. 4 1942, after issued, consented supplemental order affecting companies. This approved plan recapitalization least been highly suspect today gives Significantly order, agreed official who represented drafting original expressly stated violate judgment. 5 There are also indications not, originally, differ urge example, required annual reports showing earnings owners paid. years indicated on basis owners' carriers' properties. accepted without challenge. Yet renounces long-standing acquiescence claims imposed limits previously sought enforce. 6 contends now offers more nearly effectuate 'the basic purpose Acts carriers treat alike.' may true. does warrant our substantially changing terms parties adjudication issues.3 And District Court accepting present do just that. Cf. Hughes v. States, 342 353, 72 306, 96 L.Ed. 394. We decide case question laches estoppel, nor comment possible modifications might appropriately Clause X judgment, continues jurisdiction merely hold where normal meaning supports an interpretation; has adhered many parties, including government officials drew up administered start;4 concludes fact intended, will reject simply because another seem consistent reasons entering into agreement first place. Accordingly, judgment below affirmed. 8 Affirmed. 9 DOUGLAS dissents. 10 CLARK HARLAN took decision case. discussed detail Hearings, Antitrust Subcommittee House Committee Judiciary, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Part I. Assuming I.C.C. 'valuation' $10,000,000, $2,000,000 represents investments $1,000,000 two companies, $8,000,000 money borrowed others, appellee-companies' entitled 'dividends' one-half ($1,000,000/$2,000,000) $10,000,000 $350,000. new instead, shipper-owner's one-tenth ($1,000,000/$10,000,000) $70,000, being one's company. reads: '(A)ll hereto (have) severally entry final herein issue law admission party respect such settlement issue. * *' Fawcus Machine Co. 282 375, 378, 51 144, 145, 75 397, 'contemporaneous construction administration act respectful consder ation, overruled, except weighty reasons.'

Category: 7