Document: 338 U.S. 689 70 S.Ct. 411 94 L.Ed. 474 UNITED STATES et al.v.PACIFIC COAST WHOLESALERS' ASS'N al. FREIGHT FORWARDERS INSTITUTE v. PACIFIC Nos. 113 and 114. Argued Jan. 10, 1950. Decided Feb. 6, Mr. J. Roger Wollenberg, Washington, D.C., for the United states. Harry C. Ames, Freight Forwarders Institute. The Court declined to hear further argument. PER CURIAM. 1 appellee, Pacific Coast Wholesalers' Association, was formed by seven Los Angeles auto parts dealers in 1935; incorporated under California law as a nonprofit corporation 1943; had forty-one members issued freight bills exceeding one million dollars annual value 1945. issue presented is whether this association, with respect shipments here involved, subject regulation Interstate Commerce Commission forwarder or stands exempt status § 402(c)(1) of Act. This section reads follows: 'The provisions part shall not be construed apply (1) operations shipper, group association shippers, consolidating distributing themselves thereof, on basis, purpose securing benefits carload, truckload, other volume rates, * *.'1 2 Commission, 1945, considered appellee its first decision matter. At that time, it concluded 'It has been established proceeding traffic handled founded operated, good faith, effectuating savings charges operated basis. These are character contemplated exemption referred to, may continued without obtaining authority therefor from Commission.' 264 I.C.C. 134, 142. 3 In 1947, reversed position applied f.o.b. destination delivered price 269 504. It left standing origin stated legal obligation pay rested nonmember consignor, who paid full less-than-carload rate, rather than consignee member. therefore held difference between rate carload transportation cost profit holding out service general public. view, qualified shipments. 4 A decree three-judge district court set aside Commission's order rational 81 F.Supp. 991. decisive no were ever undertaken except at behest benefit Looking agency member buyer seller, saw reasonable ground ruling We agree. 5 There nothing language Act legislative history suggest Congress intended turn type shipment which (delivered price). On contrary, clear nature relationship thought determinative. Under test, valid claim statutory original decision. judgment below 6 Affirmed. 7 Justice DOUGLAS took consideration case. 56 Stat. 285, 49 U.S.C. 1002(c)(1), U.S.C.A. 1002(c)(1).

Category: 7