« ПретходнаНастави »
Commission to grant the request, and the other facts and circumstances stated in the answer. It is not disputable that the pivotal question in the case was whether oak railway crossties were included in the filed tariff fixing a through lumber rate of 24 cents per hundredweight, and so far as the solution of that inquiry depended upon the views of men engaged in the lumber and railroad business as developed in the testimony it is equally indisputable that there was an irreconcilable conflict. And this conflict at once leads to a consideration of the principle which dominates the controversy and upon which its decision therefore depends.
There is no room for controversy that the law required a tariff and therefore if there was no tariff on crossties, the making and filing of such tariff conformably to the statute was essential. And it is equally clear that the controversy as to whether the lumber tariff included crossties was one primarily to be determined by the Commission in the exercise of its power concerning tariffs and the authority to regulate conferred upon it by the statute. Indeed, we think it is indisputable that that subject is directly controlled by the authorities which establish that for the preservation of the uniformity which it was the purpose of the Act to Regulate Commerce to secure, the courts may not as an original question exert authority over subjects which primarily come with the jurisdiction of the Commission. Texas & P.R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426; Balt. & Ohio R. Co. v. United States ex rel. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U. S. 481; Robinson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 222 U. S. 506; Mitchell Coal Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 230 U. S. 247; Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Penna. R. R. Co., 230 U. S. 304. No question is made as to the controlling effect of the doctrine as a general rule, but it is urged that it is not applicable to this case for the following reasons:
(a) The foundation upon which the doctrine rests, it is
insisted, is the necessity of a uniform enforcement of the Interstate Commerce Act and the danger of diversity and conflict arising if questions concerning the existence of tariffs or their reasonableness, of discriminations and preferences were left to be originally determined by courts of general jurisdiction, thus giving rise to the possibility of one rule in one jurisdiction and another in another. But the argument proceeds to insist that upon the principle that where the reason for the application of a law ceases to exist the law itself ceases to apply, the settled construction of the Act to Regulate Commerce, announced and enforced in the Abilene and other cases, has here no application because it is so plain that oak crossties were included in the lumber rate as fixed in the tariff of the Railway Company that there is no reason for proceeding primarily before the Commission, as there is no possibility of difference on the subject if left to the consideration of the courts. We need not pause to point out the palpable error of law which the proposition involves since on the face of the record it is apparent that the assumption of fact upon which it rests is absolutely without foundation. We say this because nothing could more clearly demonstrate such result than does the conflict and confusion in the testimony concerning whether crossties were included in the filed lumber tariff. And indeed the same demonstration arises from a consideration of some decided cases, as, for instance, American Tie & Timber Company v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co. et al., 175 Fed. Rep. 28, 33, presumably a report of this case, where it appears that at the first hearing the trial judge was so clearly of the opinion that crossties were not lumber that he so charged the jury and directed a verdict for the Railroad Company. See also Greason v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 112 Mo. App. 116, where it is apparent that the same conclusion was reached.
(b) Because the question has been determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission in Reynolds v. Railway
Co., 1 1. C. C. Rep. 600, 685. An examination of that report, however, discloses that the railway had in effect a published rate on crossties eo nomine and the complaint was that it was unreasonable because it was higher than the rate on lumber. The ruling of the Commission was not that the lumber rate included a rate on ties, but that the rate on ties was unreasonable as compared with the lumber rate and should be reduced.
(c) Because the Railway Company by loading and carrying the three cars of ties under the 24-cent rate had itself recognized the applicability of the lumber rate to crossties and was concluded thereby. But without stopping to consider the tendency of the proof establishing the want of foundation for the proposition we think it is wanting in merit for this obvious reason: If, as we have seen, the question of whether crossties were embraced in the filed tariff concerning lumber was involved in such conflict and doubt as to require the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the situation was such that the Railway Company could not do by indirection that which the statute permitted it to do only by compliance with the law, that is, filing its tariffs in the regular way. Nothing could better serve to demonstrate this self-evident truth than by recurring to the fact that at the very inception of the controversy the request made by the Railway Company to the Interstate Commerce Commission to be allowed to immediately put in the rate on crossties was refused by that body.
(d) Because the Railway Company did not refuse to transport the ties in good faith and insisted upon the absence of a scheduled rate simply as a pretext and device for preventing the shipment of the ties and their delivery in performance of the contract with the Union Pacific Railway, and with the ulterior and wrongful motive of keeping the ties on its line so as to be able to purchase them itself from the Tie Company. But without pausing
to do more than direct attention to the fact that this proposition is necessarily disposed of by what we have said, that is, by the lawfulness, in view of the state of the existing and filed tariff, of the refusal until the Commission had acted, we think all the contentions under this last head are completely answered by the statement that the suit was based upon the unlawfulness of the action of the Railway Company in refusing to carry the ties in view of the filed tariffs, and therefore the contentions are not open for our consideration.
It results that error was committed by the court in declining to sustain the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and therefore it is our duty to reverse.
MR. JUSTICE PITNEY dissents.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v.
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI.
No. 254. Argued March 10, 1914.-Decided June 8, 1914.
There is a clear distinction between questions concerning the operation
and effect of the law of a State within its borders and upon the conduct of persons within its jurisdiction, and questions concerning the right of the State to extend its authority beyond its borders with the same effect; and a decision upon the former does not constitute a ground for refusing to entertain a writ of error to review the judg
ment of the state court involving the latter. A State may not extend the operation of its statutes beyond its borders
into the jurisdiction of other States, so as to destroy and impair the
Argument for Plaintiff in Error.
right of persons not its citizens to make a contract not operative
within its jurisdiction and lawful in the State where made. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution the
courts of one State are not bound to declare a contract, which was made in another State and modified a former contract, illegal because it would be illegal under the law of the State where the original contract was made and of which neither of the parties is
a resident or citizen. The power that a State has to license a foreign insurance company to
do business within its borders and to regulate such business does not extend to regulating the business of such corporation outside of
its borders and which would otherwise be beyond its authority. The Constitution and its limitations are the safeguards of all the
States preventing any and all of them under the guise of license or
otherwise from exercising powers not possessed. A statute of Missouri regulating loans on policies of life insurance by
the company issuing the policy, held not to operate to affect a modifying contract made in another State subsequent to the loan by the insured and the company neither of whom was a resident or citizen
of Missouri. 941 Missouri, 403, reversed.
The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this court to review judgments of the state court and also the power of a State to regulate the business beyond its borders of a foreign corporation licensed to do business therein, are stated in the opinion.
Mr. James H. McIntosh, with whom Mr. Gardiner Lathrop, Mr. Cyrus Crane, Mr. O. W. Pratt and Mr. S. W. Moore were on the brief, for plaintiff in error:
The original contract of insurance was entered into between non-residents of Missouri, who agreed that it should be controlled by the laws of New York. This was a valid provision and cannot be annulled by the courts of Missouri. Smith v. Mutual Benefit L. I. Co., 173 Missouri, 329; Burridge v. New York Life Ins. Co., 211 Missouri, 158; Gibson v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 561; London Assurance v. Companhia de Moagens, 167 U. S. 149;