Court Opinion

ID: 9421242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:57:35.905826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:29.388135
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins,
dissenting.
The Motor Carrier Act, 49 Stat. 543, 544, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a) (14), gives to the term “common carrier by motor vehicle” the classic meaning that “common carrier” had acquired and maintained during the course of centuries. In short, the test of what is a “common carrier” under this Act is what legal history has established as the test, and we do not find that the Interstate Commerce Commission has departed from this test. We cannot believe that if the evidence, as disclosed by the record, which need not be recited, had appeared in a common-law action against the respondent, a court would be justified in taking the case from the jury, and that if the jury had found against the respondent, its verdict would not be allowed to stand. The finding by the Interstate Commerce Commission that the respondent was a “common carrier,” and therefore subject to the regulatory provisions of the Act, ought not to have less weight than a jury’s verdict. Accordingly, other issues raised in the case are not reached, and we would reverse the judgment below.