Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co.

Citations: 270 U.S. 580; 46 S. Ct. 402; 70 L. Ed. 743; 1926 U.S. LEXIS 898Docket: No. 767

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; April 12, 1926; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justice Brandeis delivered the Court's opinion regarding a lawsuit filed by the Minneapolis-St. Louis Railroad Company and its receiver against the Peoria-Pekin Union Railway Company on August 6, 1925, in federal court in southern Iowa. The suit aimed to compel the defendant to switch cars for the plaintiffs, asserting that an order from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) dated April 13, 1922, mandated this service. The case had been previously addressed by the ICC and the Supreme Court in a related decision. 

The Peoria Company, an Illinois corporation, contested the jurisdiction of the Iowa court, arguing that the only service was made in Illinois, and moved to quash the service and dismiss the case. The plaintiffs claimed that under the Act of October 22, 1913, the federal court had jurisdiction as the suit aimed to enforce an ICC order based on a petition from a resident company. However, the court ultimately ruled that the ICC order was no longer effective at the time the lawsuit was filed, leading to a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal, based on the Judicial Code, centers on whether the ICC order was still in effect when the bill was filed. The ICC had previously found that the Peoria Company discriminated against the Minneapolis-St. Louis by imposing a switching charge, which the April 13, 1922, order aimed to rectify. The Peoria Company chose to address this by imposing similar charges on other carriers, which led to the filing of new tariffs that were subsequently suspended for review by the ICC. 

On December 22, 1922, the ICC dismissed the Minneapolis-St. Louis's original complaint and canceled the new tariffs, leading the Peoria Company to believe the dismissal rescinded the April 13 order, allowing it to maintain its original charges against the Minneapolis-St. Louis.

On January 4, 1923, the Peoria Company informed the Commission of its compliance intentions. The next day, the Commission's Chairman confirmed that the order from April 13, 1922, remained in effect. On January 8, 1923, the Commission initiated a general investigation into switching charges at Peoria, reopening and consolidating previous proceedings. An emergency service order was issued on January 18, 1923, requiring the Peoria Company to continue switching services, which was later declared void by the Supreme Court in Peoria, Pekin Union Ry. Co. v. United States (January 7, 1924). 

The Minneapolis. St. Louis argued that the dismissal of its complaint on December 22, 1922, did not rescind the April 13, 1922, order, as it was intended to remain in effect until further notice from the Commission. They claimed that no formal rescission occurred and that reopening the case did not negate the earlier order. However, this argument was deemed unsound, as the dismissal effectively rescinded the April order, which was solely based on the complaint. 

Furthermore, Minneapolis. St. Louis contended that subsequent Commission actions indicated an intention to restore the April order. They pointed to the January 5 telegram and the January 8 order as evidence of this intention. However, the court found that there was no formal action by the Commission to rescind the dismissal or restore the April order. The informal opinion expressed in the telegram held no legal weight, and any changes to the dismissal order required formal action by the Commission. The reopening of the case did not imply a restoration of the April order, as the Commission did not reference the dismissal or suggest a reinstatement.

Minneapolis. St. Louis filed a motion to remand on January 7, 1926, seeking to avoid the affirmance of a decree contingent on the resolution of its contentions. The motion requested the case be returned to the District Court to allow the filing of a supplemental bill due to developments following the original record submission. Specifically, it highlighted that on November 2, 1925, Minneapolis. St. Louis filed a suit against the United States to annul an earlier order that revoked a prior directive. Additionally, on November 10, 1925, the Commission vacated its December 22, 1922, order that had dismissed Minneapolis. St. Louis's complaint. Subsequent proceedings regarding the Peoria, Pekin Union Railway Company led to a recommendation for the cancellation of a tariff that Minneapolis. St. Louis had contested. However, the court determined that these later events could not influence the outcome of the current case, which relied on the circumstances at the time the suit was initiated. Consequently, the motion to remand was denied. The Peoria Company raised further objections regarding the execution of an order aimed at removing discrimination against Minneapolis. St. Louis, arguing that administrative issues required the Commission’s further involvement before any enforcement could occur. The court found that the District Court for southern Iowa lacked jurisdiction due to the order not being in effect, making this objection unnecessary to address. The court affirmed its decision. Matters concerning terminal use and similar subjects fall under the jurisdiction of Division 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, with the senior commissioner serving as chairman.