Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL. MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. ET AL. V. SAME UNITED STATES ET AL. V. MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. ET AL. PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. ET AL. V. SAME UNITED STATES ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. ET AL. PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSING & COLD STORAGE CO. V. UNITED STATES ET AL. PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSING & COLD STORAGE CO. ET AL. V. SAME UNITED STATES ET AL. V. PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSING & COLD STORAGE CO. ET AL.

decided: May 18, 1931.

MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. ET AL
v.
SAME

UNITED STATES ET AL
v.
MERCHANTS WAREHOUSE CO. ET AL.

PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. ET AL
v.
SAME

UNITED STATES ET AL
v.
PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. ET AL.

PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSING & COLD STORAGE CO
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.

PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSING & COLD STORAGE CO. ET AL
v.
SAME

UNITED STATES ET AL
v.
PHILADELPHIA WAREHOUSING & COLD STORAGE CO. ET AL.



APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.

Hughes, Holmes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Stone; Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Stone

[ 283 U.S. Page 503]

 MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are appeals under § 238 of the Judicial Code, from a decree of a District Court of three judges for Eastern Pennsylvania, dismissing the bills of complaint by which appellants, warehousing corporations doing business in Philadelphia, sought to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. 44 F.2d 379. The order required the Reading Company and the Pennsylvania and Baltimore & Ohio railroads, interstate rail carriers, to cancel such provisions in their tariffs as purported

[ 283 U.S. Page 504]

     to make the warehouses of appellants in Philadelphia a part of the station facilities of the carriers, and directed that they cease and desist from making allowances to appellants in connection with the loading and unloading of package freight at the latter's warehouses. There are also cross-appeals from an order of the District Court staying the order of the Commission pending disposition of the appeals in this Court.

The three railroads load and unload package freight at their stations in Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania and Baltimore & Ohio railroads have designated some of appellants' warehouses as parts of their station facilities there. All three have contracts of long standing with one or more appellants, under which the latter, at their warehouses, afford facilities and perform services, in connection with the loading and unloading of package freight, which they denominate terminal facilities and services, and for which the railroads pay them a stipulated compensation. In the case of the Pennsylvania, provision is made for this allowance in its published tariff.

Six warehouse companies, appellees, which also maintain warehouses in Philadelphia with private railroad sidings connected with one or another of the three railroads, and are competitors of appellants, instituted proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission, in which they assailed the terminal service contracts referred to as unjustly discriminatory and unduly preferential, and the payments made under them as unlawful rebates. Numerous merchants' organizations of Philadelphia intervened in the proceedings, which were consolidated and heard as a single cause, and resulted in the order before us. 160 I. C. C. 563.

The Interstate Commerce Commission and the court below found the facts as already stated and also the following: Carload freight, carried at carload rates, is customarily loaded and unloaded by the owner or consignee, as required by Rule 27 of the Consolidated Freight Classification,

[ 283 U.S. Page 505]

     filed under § 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act, with the binding force of a tariff schedule. By exceptions to the classification, the railroads undertake, as a part of the transportation service covered by their tariffs, to load and unload carload package freight at their Philadelphia freight stations, except when handled directly to or from cars on team tracks. At their warehouses appellants load and unload cars and perform other services presently to be referred to, for which the railroads compensate them by the challenged allowances. These services do not differ in substance from those which the competing warehouses render. Both handle the same classes of freight and procure its shipment to or from them by advertising in trade publications and in circulars to prospective customers. Shippers using public warehouse facilities generally select the company offering the lowest aggregate charge for the distribution of their goods, and, by reason of the allowances made, the contract warehouses are able to quote lower prices than their competitors, thus securing business which would otherwise go to the latter. The primary motive for the payment of the allowances to the contract warehouses is to gain traffic, and the allowances are compensation to appellants for their solicitation of freight movements over the lines of the carriers.

The Commission and court also found as follows: Appellants' warehouses, while nominally open to the general public as railroad freight stations, are not in fact public stations, but are confined to the warehousing of merchandise for their patrons. The services which they perform in connection with loading and unloading of freight, including the sending of arrival notices to their patrons after receipt of notice of arrival from the railroad, the collection of freight charges, and other incidental matters, are in fact performed for the owners of the merchandise rather ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.