Opinion of the Court.

wherein there can be champerty." "We must regard an agreement by any attorney to undertake the conduct of a litigation on his own account, to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and to receive as his compensation a portion of the proceeds of the recovery, or of the thing in dispute, as obnoxious to the law against champerty; and that this was the character of the arrangement in the present case we are entirely satisfied. The very thing in dispute was conveyed, or sought to be conveyed, in advance, to the attorney and an associate, for the express purpose of enabling the attorney to conduct the litigation on his own account and at his own cost and expense; and in consideration of this he was to retain at the end of the litigation one third of what had been conveyed to him, and was to account to his clients for the other two thirds. This was certainly an agreement on his part to take as his compensation a part of the thing in dispute, and it does not alter the case at all that the land when recovered was to be sold. That was only the practical mode for a division of proceeds between the parties to the enterprise." 6 App. D. C. 283, 284.

The deed, as appears upon its face, having been made to carry out the champertous agreement, was unlawful, and passed no title; and the joinder of Peck as co-trustee in the deed could not give it validity.

The result is that this action cannot be maintained by the trustees claiming under the deed, although a similar action might have been maintained by the grantors in their own names. Burnes v. Scott, 117 U. S. 582, 590, and Hilton v. Woods, L. R. 4 Eq. 432, 439, there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Statement of the Case.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. DETROIT, GRAND HAVEN AND MILWAUKEE RAILWAY

COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

No. 539. Argued March 16, 1897. Decided May 24, 1897.

A railroad engaged in interstate commerce does not violate the provisions of §§ 4 and 6 of the interstate commerce act, by furnishing cartage for delivery free of charge to the merchants of one town on its line, and not furnishing similar service to the merchants of another town on its line thirty-three miles distant, nor by failing to publish such free cartage in the schedule published in the first town, when such privilege has been openly and notoriously enjoyed for twenty-five years. The fourth section of that act has in view only the transportation of passengers and property by rail, and when property transported as interstate commerce reaches its destination by rail at lawful rates, having regard to rates charged upon similar transportation to other points on the line, it does not concern the Interstate Commerce Commission whether the goods after arrival are carried to their place of deposit in vehicles furnished by the railway company free of charge, or in vehicles furnished by the owners of goods; and the same rule applies to the transportation of passengers.

In matters of this kind much should be left to the judgment of the Commission, and, should it direct, by a general order, that railway companies should thereafter regard cartage, when furnished free, as one of the terminal charges, and include it as such in their schedules, such an order might be regarded as a reasonable exercise of the Commission's powers.

THE Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Michigan, operates a railroad wholly within that State, running westwardly from Detroit to Grand Haven. In connection with eastern roads it is engaged in interstate commerce. Upon its line are the cities of Ionia and Grand Rapids, distant 124 and 157 miles from Detroit respectively. It has an established tariff of freight rates to these points from New York, Philadelphia and other points east of Detroit.

On September 18, 1888, Stone & Carten, retail merchants at Ionia, filed a petition before the Interstate Commerce Com

Statement of the Case.

mission, complaining that said railroad company was unduly discriminating against Ionia and preferring Grand Rapids, in violation of certain provisions of the interstate commerce act. The company filed an answer, and the case was heard upon a written stipulation of facts, which constituted the sole evidence on which the case was submitted to the Commission for decision.

The facts found by the Commission were as follows:

"1. The complainants are copartners, doing business under the firm name of Stone & Carten, and are engaged in the sale at retail of goods, wares and merchandise in the city of Ionia, county of Ionia, and State of Michigan, purchasing said goods, wares and merchandise at Philadelphia, Pa., New York, N. Y., Boston, Mass. and points east of Detroit, Michigan.

"2. That the respondent railway company is a corporation existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan, and is a common carrier of passengers and property for hire between the city of Detroit and the city of Grand Haven, both of said places and its entire line of railroad being in the State of Michigan, but it does not own and control a line of steamboats plying across Lake Michigan between Grand Haven and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but there is a line of steamboats engaged in the transportation of persons and property across Lake Michigan between Grand Haven and Milwaukee, from which the respondent receives traffic consigned over its road from Milwaukee, and to which it delivers traffic from its road destined to Milwaukee; that all of said boats are under the control and direction of an independent corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, by the name of the Grand Haven and Milwaukee Transportation Company; that the management of the business of the last-named company is under the management and control of the same officers as those which manage and control the road and business of the respondent.

"3. The respondent, for its services as a common carrier for continuous shipment, under a common arrangement, of property from Detroit to its stations on its line of transportation, established and published a schedule of rates and charges,

Statement of the Case.

a tariff of freights which makes on all freights from Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and all other points east of Detroit, consigned over the respondent's road, the same rates and charges for the complainants which are made and charged for the same class of freights to the merchants doing business at the city of Grand Rapids, a copy of which schedule or tariff is hereto annexed and made and deemed a part of this stipulation.

"4. The shipments of freight from Philadelphia, New York, Boston and points east of Detroit, which are delivered to the respondent's road at said city of Detroit and transported by it over its line of railway, pass through the city of Ionia, before reaching the city of Grand Rapids; that it is a shorter distance from Detroit to Ionia than from Detroit to Grand Rapids, and over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance.

"5. That the respondent provides, at its own expense, drays, carts and trucks, at the city of Grand Rapids, for the service of transporting merchandise and freight generally, as well as merchandise and freight consigned from Philadelphia, New York, Boston and points east of Detroit between its station at Grand Rapids and the places of business of merchants, traders and other patrons of its road at that place, which service it performs without additional charge to the owner or shipper of property on account thereof; that this service is not furnished to complainants or other merchants, traders and patrons of its road at the city of Ionia; that this service at Grand Rapids has been openly and notoriously rendered for a long period of time, to wit, for twenty-five years and upwards; that its station at the said city of Grand Rapids is within the corporate limits thereof, and is, on an average, one and a quarter miles from the business sections of said city where the traffic of the places tributary to respondent's road originates and terminates, while respondent's station for receiving and discharging freight and property at the city of Ionia is not to exceed an eighth of a mile from the business centre of said city; that at the city of Grand Rapids there are two other railroads, the Michigan Central Railroad and

Statement of the Case.

the Grand Rapids, Lansing and Detroit [Detroit, Lansing and Northern?] Railroad, both of which are immediately and directly in competition with respondent's road for the business of Grand Rapids; that the stations of both of said roads for receiving and discharging freight and property at Grand Rapids are near the business centre of said city, requiring only a short haul to and from their stations, on an average about one quarter of a mile; that respondent did the carting of freight to and from its station at Grand Rapids substantially in the same manner as at present long prior to the time when either said Michigan Central or Grand Rapids, Lansing and Detroit Railroads was constructed to that place.

"6. That the actual cost of carting or draying freight from respondent's warehouse in the said city of Ionia to the several places in said city of Ionia to and from which traffic has to be hauled is two cents per hundredweight; that the cost of carting or draying freight transported over respondent's line to and from the places of business of the merchants, traders and other patrons of its road at Grand Rapids is two cents per hundredweight.

"7. That there is but slight competition encountered by the complainants and other persons, firms and corporations engaged in business at the city of Ionia interested in shipping over respondent's road, with similar business at the city of Grand Rapids."

"9. That complainants have not brought any suit for the recovery of money or damage for which the respondent is alleged to be liable under the provisions of the act to regulate commerce, but have elected to adopt this procedure as the sole means of obtaining relief.

"10. The city of Grand Rapids has a population of about 70,000. The city of Ionia has a population of about 6000. The freight traffic to and from Grand Rapids by all roads in 1887 amounted to 985,685 tons. The freight traffic to and from Ionia by all roads for the same time amounted to about 55,000 tons.

"11. Cartage by railway companies in similar manner to that at Grand Rapids is conducted by other railway compa