6

or where the court takes judicial notice of an act of Congress under which the defendant contends that the obstruction is authorized; where the plaintiff claims the right to accretions along a river front under letters patent of the United States, issued in pursuance of an act of Congress and the construction of the act under which the patent was issued is in question;7 but that the defendants cannot obtain a writ of error to review a judgment of a State court granting an injunction against their interference with the plaintiff's possession of lands claimed in the complaint under an act of Congress, when the defense is that they have acquired by priority of possession rights to the use of the water which have vested and accrued, are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws and decisions as provided in § 2339 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.8

§ 32a. Cases arising under the Interstate Commerce Law. The Interstate Commerce Law provides: "Any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make complaint to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit in his or their own behalf for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may be liable under the provisions of this act, in any District or Circuit Court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person or persons shall not have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must in each case elect which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will adopt."1

The essential character of commerce, not the bill at the place where title passes, determines whether it is interstate or intrastate.2

It has been held: that a bill by one railroad company against

law, whether State or Federal, and the only question for consideration was whether the obstruction was authorized by a State statute.

5 E. A. Chatfield Co. v. New Haven, 110 Fed. 788.

6 New Orleans, M. & T. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 102 U. S. 135, 26 L. ed. 96.

7 King v. St. Louis, 98 Fed. 641.

8 Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 639, 44 L. ed. 305; dismissing appeal 51 Pac. 146, 16 Utah 125; In re Helena & L. Smelting & Reduction Co., 48 Fed. 609.

§ 32a. 124 St. at L. 382, Comp. St. § 8573.

2 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Clark Bros. Coal Min. Co., 238 U. S. 456.

another and its employee, to enforce the interstate commerce act, by enjoining the defendants from refusing to receive plaintiff's cars, and one to enjoin a common carrier from enforcing an unreasonable rate for transportation, in violation of the same statute; arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States. It has been held: that an application for a mandamus, to compel a railroad engaged in interstate commerce to run its trains to a certain station, in obedience to a State statute, involves a Federal question, since a judgment therein may impose a burden on interstate commerce. But, it has been said, that a constitutional question is not presented where the court has occasion to apply the rules of the common law regulating transportation charges, whether or not the carriage be interstate.6 Suits to enjoin combinations, and to cancel agreements, which are in restraint of commerce between States, or to prevent by trespass interference with the performance of a contract with the National Government 9 arise under the laws of the United States.

10

The value of the matter in controversy is immaterial to the jurisdiction; except in the case of a removal where the statutes provide that: "No suit brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction against a railroad company, or other corporation, or person, engaged in and carrying on the business of a common carrier, to recover damages for delay, loss of, or injury to property received for transportation by such common carrier under sections of the Act to regulate commerce, approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, as amended June

3 Ex parte Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 41 L. ed. 1110.

4 Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 215 U. S. 501, 54 L. ed. 300, affirming Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Macon Grocery Co., C. C. A., 166 Fed. 206; Tift v. Southern Ry. Co., 123 Fed. 789; Kalispell Lumber Co. V. Great Northern Ry. Co., 157 Fed. 845; Sunderland Bros. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 158 Fed. 877.

5 Illinois v. Rock Island & P. R. Co., 71 Fed. 753.

6 Murray v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.

twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and eight, February twentyfifth, nineteen hundred and nine, and June eighteenth, nineteen hundred and ten, shall be removed to any court of the United States where the matter in controversy does not exceed, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $3,000." 11 An action in a State court, to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received by reason of the failure of defendant railroad company properly to equip its cars with safety appliances, is not removable merely because of an allegation in the complaint that defendant is engaged in interstate commerce, where it does not appear that there is any controversy as to the construction or effect of the Federal law relating to railroads engaged in such commerce, since the questions of fact whether defendant is engaged in interstate commerce, and, if so, whether it has complied with the law, are not Federal questions.1

12

The District Courts have jurisdiction of suits to set aside or restrain the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.13 The cases in which such a review is proper are explained in a subsequent section.14

A District Court has jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin a railroad company from refusing to transport goods although the controversy has not been submitted to the commission; when no question concerning the charges for transportation is involved in the suit; 15 but not when the refusal has been confined to a single carload.1

15a

The District Courts have jurisdiction of actions to collect damages awarded by orders of reparation made by the Interstate Commerce Commission.16 Such an action may be brought

11 36 St. at L. 1094, Comp. St. 991; E. H. Emery Co. v. Ame. Refrig. Tr. Co., 246 U. S. 634; Southern Pac. Co. v. Stewart, 245 U. S. 359; Adams v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 210 Fed. 362.

12 Myrtle v. Nevada C. & O. Ry. Co., 137 Fed. 193.

13 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. United States, 218 Fed. 914; Chestnut Ridge Ry. Co. v. United States, 248 Fed. 792; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Spiller, C. C. A., 246 Fed. 1. 14 Infra, § 151.

Fed. Prac. Vol. I-8

15 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. F. W. Cook Brewing Co., 223 U. S. 70; Royal Brewing Co. v. Missouri K. & T. Ry. Co., 217 Fed. 146.

15a Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Van Dusen Harrington Co., C. C. A., 245 Fed. 454.

16 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Meeker, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 785.

"If a carrier does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit such order was

in a State or Federal Court.17 It has been held: that where any evidence is offered except the order and the finding of the commission which supports the same, there is a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff's right to recover; 18 and that where the evidence before the Commission is offered upon the

trial the court can inquire whether this is sufficient to justify the order and if not, should direct judgment for the defendant.19 Either party may offer additional evidence.20 The plaintiff who has paid the unreasonable charges may recover although he has collected them from his vendors.21 The Commission and the jury may in a proper case include interest in the damages awarded.22

When the transaction of which complaint is made took place in interstate commerce, the State Courts 23 and the Federal Courts, originally irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute 24 and upon removal when the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount in ordinary cases, have jurisdiction of actions against railway companies 25 or other carriers for loss

588; Clark Bros. Coal Min. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 238 Fed. 642. 19 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Elliott, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 78; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. W. F. Jacobi & Co., 242 U. S. 89, where all the evidence before the commission was not before the court.

20 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Co., C. C. A., 235 Fed. 474.

21 Southern Pac. Co. v. Carnell Taenzer Lumber Co., 245 U. S. 531. Where it appeared that the shipper had paid no part of the freight no recovery was allowed to his assignee, the consignee, there being no proof that the latter had made the payment. Michigan Central R. Co. v. Elliott, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 18. Where other carriers not parties to the proceeding before the commission had participated to a small extent in the transportation of the shipments on account of the payment for which the award was made was held not to invalidate the order. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Co., C. C. A., 235 Fed. 474. Where after the time for payment fixed by the first order had

elapsed there was an amendment which did not affect the award and left the date unchanged; it was held that that did not effect the plaintiffs right to recover. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Co., C. C. A., 235 Fed. 474.

22 Minds v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 237 Fed. 267; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. C. E. Ferguson Sawmill Co., C. C. A., 235 Fed. 474.

23 N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Beham, 242 U. S. 148, sustaining an action brought in a State Court; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Puritan Coal Min. Co., 237 U. S. 121; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Sonman Shaft Coal Co., 242 U. S. 120.

24 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, 33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. N. S. 257; St. Louis In. & So. Ry. Co. v. Starbird, 243 U. S. 592, 37 Sup. Ct. 462, 61 L. ed. 917; N. Y. Cent. R. Co. v. Mutual Orange Distributors, C. C. A., 251 Fed. 230.

25 36 St. at L. 1094, quoted supra. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. of Texas, 251 Fed. 332.