Legal Document

371 U.S. 84 83 Supreme Court Reporter 157 9 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 142 HEWITT-ROBINS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner,v.EASTERN FREIGHT-WAYS, INC. Number 37. Argued Oct. 11, 1962. Decided Nov. 19, Harry Teichner, Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner. Wilfred R. Caron, Kingston, respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is an action by a shipper to recover from motor carrier difference in rate charges resulting practice latter carrying unrouted intrastate shipments on its interstate routes at higher rates than those applicable available intrastiate routes. The District Southern New York stayed awaiting finding Interstate Commerce Commission as reasonableness practice. found it unreasonable* under Motor Carrier Act, 49 Code KF62 §§ 301—327, Annotated KF65 U5 301—327 and subsequently dismissed complaint ground that Act neither provided any reparation remedy nor preserved one common law. 187 F.Supp. 722. Appeals, judge dissenting, affirmed same grounds. 293 Federal Reporter, 2nd 205. Each court bottomed decision upon T.I.M.E. Incorporated versus States, 359 464, 79 904, 3 952 (1959). Having some doubts appositeness case because importance question administration we granted certiorari. 368 951, 82 393, 7 385. We have concluded Inc., supra, does not control issue here therefore reverse judgments. 2 petitioner alleges between January 1, 1953, February 1955, numerous foam rubber pads respondent, vehicle, transportation Buffalo, City. It claims while were tendered without specifying shipment contrary duty carrier, shipped over route tariff had file with rather lower Public Service York. Excess sum $10,000 been collected respondent which prays judgment. sole before us whether states cause may grant relief. gist alleged common-law right owed ship cheapest route, no adequate justification so doing being shown. Nevertheless, says, derogation this responsibility transported subjected damage. 4 No attack made either carrier's published tariffs—both are admittedly reasonable. controversy hinges entirely violated selecting accompanying loss, i.e., two lawful rates. believe stated justiciable action. far cry supra. There question, Court, was, 'Can goods certificated challenge post-shipment litigation accordance governing shipment?' 465, 906, 952. determined such was foreclosed 'saving clause' § 216(j), 316(j), inconsistent statutory scheme regulation. emphasized built-in protections given shippers against unreasonable rates, Pages 478—480, 912 913, S.Ct., citing 30-day-notice provision 217(c), well power 216(g) suspend seven months. remedies amply protected allowance judicial would result undercutting stability structure procedures sought insure. 5 Here directed 'reasonableness' but misrouting therefore, determination rail carriers' routing practices has long within primary jurisdiction Commission. Northern Pacific company Solum, 247 477, 38 550, 62 L.Ed. 1221 (1918). more important where alternative greater both number variety. Furthermore, selection usually ad hoc basis, precluding preshipment reasonableness. Unlike making there procedure be challenged advance shipment. Nor truck accorded even rail, 15(8), select request particular carrier. In view these weighty differences survival damage claim appears consistent Act. It, meets proviso teaching 6 conclusion buttressed fact nowise hampers efficient unlike A jeopardize tariffs or routes, routed showing so. Moreover, actions healthy deterrent effect utilization field, which, turn, minimize 'cease desist' proceedings Finally, overlooked, absence places mercy overriding purpose would, contrary, give unfair advantage. Those who contend place much weight that, said, practices. put significance tags 'overcharges' Commissioner Eastman apparently did his testimony Senate, see 477—478, n. 18 U.S., 911—912 proceeding involving problem originally To say, however, compels courts award damages every instance reparations means follows. Indeed, doctrine designed apply 'where cognizable courts, * enforcement requires resolution issues placed special competence administrative body *.' Western Co., 352 59, 64, 77 161, 165, 126 (1956); Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, 19.01 (1958). first instance, though case, exercised, Bell Potato Chip Aberdeen Truck Line, 43 M.C.C. 337, 343 (1944), supported line cases. See Thompson Texas Mexican Ry. 328 134, 66 937, 90 1132 (1946), cases cited. Be may, saving clause 216(j) cannot presence decide basic relief depends. Survival depends exercise According if survive. inconsistencies hence survived. Here, indicated, running interference supports overall purposes congressional embodied four corners. remedy, survives judgment reversed. 8 Reversed. HARLAN, whom STEWART WHITE join, dissenting. 10 With deference, & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions consider 952, plainly controls one. That could hardly gainsaid extent purports action, is, based terms itself. T.I.M.E., 468—472 907—909 However, construing alleging also holds 'not inconsistent' statute. 11 Court's rests primarily accords existence certain their application, 217(c) lack protective addition, three further considerations asserted support conclusion: (1) whereas permit attacking hamper Act; (2) will deter decrease I.C.C.; (3) reasoning, submit, misconceives basis decision. 12 reached basically rested interdependent considerations: adjudicate matter jurisdiction, 473—474, 909—910; since must reasonable Congress denied authority past charges, allow recovery 'permit I.C.C. accomplish indirectly what chosen directly,' Id., 475, 910. 13 Both factors present here. can doubt 216(b) (e) complained practices,1 indeed Commission's taken respect very practices, Hewitt-Robins, Eastern Freight-Ways, 302 173, show. suggested possesses misrouting. conjunction thus brings decided only Terms ago, into fully play. 14 1. true contain provisions making. cannot, serve distinguish whose underlying stand quite independently impact should noted mean carriers follow impunity. Section 212(a) provides own initiative complaint, revoke certificates, permits, licenses willful failure comply order regulation Under 216(e) termination unjust prescribe followed. 222(a) imposes fines violations 222(b) confers Courts enjoin when application 15 2. If referred Commission, recognizes essential, But suggestion danger presented challenging contributed manifestly untenable. conceded there, course prior decisions Court,2 compelled referral all Since allowed tribunal deciding uniform been, here, functioning area threat structure. possibility might constitute through stimulating excessive regarded significant factor observed handful brought previous 24 years. 479, 913. And now believes relevant consideration certainly claims, likely arise frequently because, points out, 'selection reasonableness.'3 16 3. suggestions incidental interest justice shippers, need said matters Congress.4 Our statute find it. 17 affirm. 173. Respondent Jersey, seeking set aside report cease-and-desist entered After filed amended disposition striking out order, leaving declaratory findings three-judge court, relying our 337 426, 69 1410, 93 1451 (1949), held attack. D.C., 170 848. Decision abeyance single pending litigation. Thus bifurcated Courts, yet separately appealable. avoided followed admonition 'the retaining final expound statute, avail themselves aid implicit agency's superiority gathering facts marshaling them meaningful pattern,' Maritime Board Isbrandtsen 356 481, 498, 78 851, 861, 926 (1958), adversary 316(b), pertinent part: 'It shall property vehicle observe relating connected commerce.' whenever determine practice.' See, e.g., American Tie Timber 234 138, 34 885, 58 1255; Abilene Cotton Oil 204 27 350, 51 553. reference Eastman's statement quoted 18, intended imply characterized permissible, were, makes clear, 'above rates,' 478, 912, resulting, wrong tariff. former thought recovered 'in law stands.' 912. So far, refused act. H.R. 8031, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959); 471—472 notes 10, 908—909.

Classification Label: 7