The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919. Page: 19
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
MICHIG'A ,CENT. R. CO. V. ELLIOTT
on production of such assignment, entered a reparation order requir-
ing the carriers to pay Michigan 'Mofors Company a definite sum of
money "on a9omunt of unreasonable charge" in the transportation of
said motor cars.
This order not being obeyed,' the Michigan Motors Company began
suit, under section. 16 of thp, Act' to Regulate Commerce (Act Feb 4,
1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 384 [Comp. St. 8584]), to recover the amount
awarded in the reparation order.
[1, 2] At trial, plaintiff introduced the findings and order of the
Commission, which' by the said section of the act are "prima facie
evidence of the facts therein stated," and rested. Defendants offered
the record before the Interstate Commission, and agreed that Elliott
had succeeded to whatever were the rights of Michigan Motors Com-
The District Coui-t held, as a conclusion of law, that "no legal com-
petent evidence" had been adduced "upon the trial of this action to
rebut the prima facie evidence furnished by the report and order of
the Interstate Commerce Commission," and gave judgment for the
amount fixed ,ig thb reparation order, with interest, costs, and coun-
sel fee. Whereupon this writ was taken.
The case for Elliott in final analysis is based on the proposition
that the findings and order of the Interstate Commission, though shown
to rest on nothing that the law calls evidence, must nevertheless be
themselves received as .satisfactory evidence of whatever facts, or
assertions of fact, are therein contained, unless rebutted by new and
more persuasive testimony. Such is not the law. It was the duty
of the trial coirut to inquire whether there was any substantial evi-
dence before the Commission to justify its order. The matter has
been so recently and, exhaustively considered in Atchison, etc., Co.
v. Spiller, 246 Fed. 1, 158 C. C. A. 227; 249 Fed. 677, 161 C. C. A.
587, that no further citation is necessary.
When the record of this proceeding is examined, it is seen to be,
like all such suits, a claim for damages, and certainly it is a necessary
element of most, claims for pecuniary damages that the successful
party should have pecuniarily suffered. It affirmatively appeared be-
low that the Lippard Company had suffered nothing; there was no
evidence that the Michigan Motors Company had suffered-i. e., paid
unjust freight charges. Thereupon, on production of an assignment
from the petitioner who had received no damage to the one who
had proved none, an order of reparation was made in favor of the
latter. Such an assignment transferred nothing, and, on the very find-
ing of the Commission, judginent should have been given for defend-
Judgment reversed, with costs, and new trial awarded.
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 256: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, May-July, 1919., legislative document, 1919; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38827/m1/33/: accessed June 23, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.