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. Mutual Orange Distributors, C. A., 251 Fed. 230.

v.

C.

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

or damage to passengers' baggage 26 or goods shipped over their lines; 27 to recover damages for the failure of a common carrier to furnish cars for freight within a reasonable time; 28 although there has been no order by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the premises. But not where the sole complaint or the failure of the carrier to supply cars fitted with inside doors or bulkheads or timber for the construction of such fittings.29 The District Courts have jurisdiction of actions by carriers to recover freight charges upon interstate shipments,30 including charges for disinfecting cattle cars although the defendant admits that the shipment was made in interstate commerce and the propriety of the charges depends on the sole ground that the carrier is estopped from the colleation; 21 but not it has been held of an action to collect the balance due for freight from the consignor which it has failed through error to collect the full amount from the consignee.32

Where he has made no complaint to the Interstate Commerce Commission, a shipper may sue in a district court to recover unjust and unreasonable charges for freight which he has been

26 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.

27 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; McGoon v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 204 Fed. 998; Smith v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 210 Fed. 988. As to the liability of initial carriers see 34 St. at L. 595, Comp. St. § 8604a.

28 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.

Where the distribution of the cars was in accordance with the carriers' rules it was held that there could be no recovery until the commission had determined whether the rules in this respect were reasonable. Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 230 U. S. 304.

29 Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 240 U. S. 43.

30 Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Kinkade, 203 Fed. 165; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Caneo, 241 Fed. 727; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Wash. & C. Ry. Co., 242 Fed. 531 (a suit by one carrier against another).

31 Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Rice, 247 U. S. 201.

32 Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Zemurray, C. C. A., 238 Fed. 789.

34

obliged to pay; 33 at least when the controversy involves only a construction of the tariff schedule and its application to the shipments in question; or the construction of a federal statute such as that forbidding secret discriminations; 35 or when the Commission has decided the rates to be unreasonable in a proceeding instituted by another shipper similarly situated; 36 but not to recover damages in addition to those awarded by the Interstate Commerce Commission for the same grievance.37

The Interstate Commerce Commission has the function of passing upon the validity of a contract between a railroad company and a wharf company for the transfer of goods from cars to vessels.38 Consequently the Federal Courts, before a decision by the Commission upon the subject, will not take jurisdiction of a friendly suit by the latter against the former company to recover compensation under such a contract, when it appears that the suit is brought to obtain a judgment which might be pleaded against a disapproval by the Commission of the contract.39

Suits to enjoin combinations,40 and to cancel agreements, 41 which are in restraint of commerce between States, arise under the laws of the United States and are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts if the value of the matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional amount. But it was held : that a suit by the receiver of a railroad company for an injunetion against the execution of a conspiracy to injure his company by a diversion of traffic was not removable.42 A suit by the owner of a telegraph line to enjoin its destruction is not

33 National Coal Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 211 Fed 65. 34 Gimbel Bros. v. Barrett, 215 Fed. 1004; National Elevator Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 588.

35 Langdon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 194 Fed. 486; A. J. Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co., C. C. A., 195 Fed. 12; California Adjustment Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 226 Fed. 349.

36 National Pole Co. v. Chicago,

& N. W. Ry. Co., C. C. A., 211 Fed. 65.

37 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Tie Co., 242 U. S. 288.

38 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 204 Fed. 476.

39 Ibid.

40 Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 183 Fed. 133.

41 Chalmers Chemical Co. v. Chadcloid Chemical Co., 175 Fed. 995.

42 Smith v. Barnett, 242 Fed. 83.

within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, because the defendant's acts would interfere with interstate commerce. 43 Α suit by a city to restrain the violation by a railway company of a contract fixing rates for transportation does not arise under the laws of the United States although the bill alleges in its charging part that the defendant relies upon an invalid order of the Interstate Commerce Commission authorizing an increase of the rates.44

§ 33. Suits on judicial and official bonds. Actions upon bonds required by the orders of the Federal courts, such as supersedeas bonds, injunction bonds, or bonds in support of attachments by the Federal courts, receivers' bonds, and suits upon the bonds of deputy collectors, United States marshals, cashiers of national banks," clerks of Federal courts, and other Federal officers, arise under the laws of the United States.

48 Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Nolan, 240 Fed. 754; supra, § 25.

44 City of Monroe v. Detroit, M. & T. S. L. Ry., 257 Fed. 782; supra, §§ 24 and 25; Interborough R. R. v. Boston & M. R. R., C. C. A., 239 Fed. 97. Headnote:

"A suit by a railroad company, which leased its line, to compel the lessee company to issue passes pursuant to the lease agreement, is not one over which the federal courts have jurisdiction under Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433, as a suit arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, because the lessee's probable defense, based on the inhibition against the issuance of passes found in the acts to regulate commerce (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, and Act June 18, 1910, c. 309, 36 Stat. 539), was anticipated and attacked on the ground that such defense was unavailing under the Constitution."

$ 33. 1 American Surety Co. v. Shulz, 237 U. S. 159, affirming 222 Fed. 280; Crane v. Buckley, 105 Fed. 401.

6

2 Lamb v. Ewing, C. C. A., 54 Fed. 269; Leslie v. Brown, 90 Fed. 171, 32 C. C. A. 556.

3 Files v. Davis, 118 Fed. 465. 4 United States v. Douglas, 113 N. C. 190, 18 S. E. 202.

5 Crawford v. Johnson, Fed. Cas. No. 3,369 (Deady, 457); Orner v. Saunders, Fed. Cas. No. 10,584 (3 Dill. 284).

6 Feibelman v. Packard, 109 U. S. 421, 27 L. ed. 984; Bachrack v. Norton, 132 U. S. 337, 33 L. ed. 377; Lawrence v. Norton, 13 Fed. 1, 4 Woods, 383; McKee v. Brooks, 64 Tex. 255. Contra, Phillips v. Edelstein, (Texas), 2 Willson, Civ. Cas Ct. App. § 449; where the suit was brought for the wrongful seizure of property under a writ of attachment.

7 Walker v. Windsor Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 56 Fed. 76.

8 Howard v. U. S., 184 U. S. 676, 46 L. ed. 754; affirming 102 Fed. 77, 42 C. C. A. 169.

9 U. S. v. Belknap, 73 Fed. 19; an Indian agent.