« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
cial consideration. Courts, as a rule, have at- [ state), amounted to fifty-five millions of doltempted no judicial definition of a "public" lars to the wheat raisers of North Dakota. as distinguished from a "private" purpose, but It answered the contention that the indushave left each case to be determined by its tries involved were private in their nature, own peculiar circumstances. Gray, Limita- by stating that all of them belonged to the tions of Taxing Power, § 176. state of North Dakota, and therefore the activities authorized by the legislation were to be distinguished from business of a private nature having private gain for its objective.
"Necessity alone is not the test by which the limits of state authority in this direction are to be defined, but a wise statesmanship must look beyond the expenditures which are absolutely needful to continue the existence of organized government, and embrace others which may tend to make that government subserve the general well-being of society, and advance the present and prospective happiness and prosperity of the people." Cooley, Justice, in People v. Salem, 20 Mich. 452, 4 Am. Rep. 400.
Questions of policy are not submitted to judicial determination, and the courts have no general authority of supervision over the exercise of discretion which under our system is reposed in the people or other departments of government. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 569, 31 Sup. Ct. 259, 55 L. Ed. 328; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Kansas, 233 U. S. 389, 34 Sup. Ct. 612, 58 L. Ed. 1011, L. R. A. 1915C,
As to the Home Building Act, that was sustained because of the promotion of the general welfare in providing homes for the people, a large proportion of whom were tenants moving from place to place. It was believed and affirmed by the Supreme Court of North Dakota that the opportunity to secure and maintain homes would promote the general welfare, and that the provisions of the statutes to enable this feature of the system to become effective would redound to the general benefit.
As we have said, the question for us to consider and de*termine is whether this system of legislation is violative of the federal Constitution because it amounts to a taking of property without due process of law. The precise question herein involved so far as we have
 With the wisdom of such legislation, and the soundness of the economic policy involved we are not concerned. Whether it will result in ultimate good or harm it is not within our province to inquire.
 We come now to examine the grounds upon which the Supreme Court of North Dakota held this legislation not to amount to a taking of property without due process of law. The questions involved were given elaborate consideration in that court, and it held, concerning what may in general terms be denominated the "banking legislation," that it
(Rev. St. 1903, c. 4, § 87) authorizing cities and fuel yards for the purpose of selling or towns to establish and maintain wood, coal these necessaries to the inhabitants of cities and towns, did not deprive taxpayers of due process of law within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In that case we re
iterated the attitude of this court towards was justified for the purpose of providing state legislation, and repeated what had been banking facilities, and to enable the state to said before, that what was or was not a pubcarry out the purposes of the other acts, of lic use was a question concerning which local which the Mill & Elevator Association Act is authority, legislative and judicial, had espethe principal one. It justified the Mill & Ele- cial means of securing information to enable vator Association Act by the peculiar situa- them to form a judgment, and particularly tion in the state of North Dakota, and partic- that the judgment of the highest court of the ularly by the great agricultural industry state, declaring a given use to be public in its of the state. It estimated from facts of nature, would be accepted by this court unwhich it was authorized to take judicial no- less clearly unfounded. In that case the pretice, that 90 per cent. of the wealth produced | vious decisions of this court, sustaining this by the state was from agriculture, and stated proposition, were cited with approval, and a that upon the prosperity and welfare of that quotation was made from the opinion of the industry other business and pursuits carried Supreme Court of Maine justifying the legon in the state were largely dependent; that islation under the conditions prevailing in the state produced 125,000,000 bushels of that state. We think the principle of that dewheat each year. The manner in which the cision is applicable here. present system of transporting and marketing this great crop prevents the realization of what are deemed just prices was elaborately stated. It was affirmed that the annual loss from these sources (including the loss of fer-In many instances states and municipalities tility to the soil and the failure to feed the have in late years seen fit to enter upon projby-products of grain to stock within the ects to promote the public welfare which in
This is not a case of undertaking to aid private institutions by public taxation as was the fact in Citizens' Saving & Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 665, 22 L. Ed. 455.
been able to discover has never been present
ed to this court. The nearest approach to it is found in Jones v. City of Portland, 245 U. S. 217, 38 Sup. Ct. 112, 62 L. Ed. 252, L. R. A. 1918C, 765, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 660, in which we held that an act of the state of Maine
the past have been considered entirely within the domain of private enterprise.
Under the peculiar conditions existing in North Dakota, which are emphasized in the
opinion of its highest court, *if the state sees fit to enter upon such enterprises as are here involved, with the sanction of its Constitution, its Legislature and its people, we are not prepared to say that it is within the authority of this court, in enforcing the observance of the Fourteenth Amendment, to set aside such action by judicial decision. APPEAL AND ERROR 465 (2)-ON WRIT OF Affirmed.
The District Court was right in its conclusion that there was no jurisdiction. The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded to the District Court, with directions to dismiss the bill for want of jurisdiction. So ordered.
Suit by John W. Scott and others against Lynn J. Frazier and others. From a decree dismissing the bill on the merits (258 Fed. 669), plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
Messrs. N. C. Young, of Fargo, N. D., and Tracy R. Bangs and C. J. Murphy, both of Grand Forks, N. D., for appellants.
Messrs. S. L. Nuchols, of Mandan, N. D., W. S. Lander, of Wahpeton, N. D., and Frederick A. Pike, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellees.
*Memorandum opinion by direction of the Court by Mr. Justice DAY.
This suit, so far as the merits are concerned, is like No. 811, just decided. 253 U. S. 233, 40 Sup. Ct. 499, 64 L. Ed. It was brought in the District Court of the United States for the District of North Dakota to enjoin the payment of public funds in the state treasury and the issuing of state bonds under the Constitution and laws of North Dakota. We have sufficiently stated the nature of this Constitution and the laws involved in the opinion in No. 811.
MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO. v. McGREW
ERROR TO STATE COURT, BOND FOR SUPERSE-
Where a defendant against whom a judgment for $14,000 was affirmed by the state deas bond in the sum of $2,000 only, which, court procured a writ of error with a supersehowever, provided that it should not affect the liability on the bond for appeal to the state court, the supersedeas will be vacated unless a bond for $20,000 is given by the plaintiff in error.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.
Suit by the McGrew Coal Company against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri (217 S. W. 984), and defendant brings error. On motion by defendant in error to vacate supersedeas. Plaintiff in error ordered to furnish an additional bond, in default of which the supersedeas is to be vacated.
The motion to vacate supersedeas was as follows:
Defendant in error, McGrew Coal Company, moves this court to vacate the approval of the bond taken as a supersedeas herein by the honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and for grounds of such motion does aver:
On April 20, 1915, in the circuit court of Lafayette county, Mo., at Lexington, a judgment was entered in favor of McGrew Coal
Company against the Missouri Pacific Railway
An appeal bond was given in that court for $28,000 and an appeal taken to the Supreme Court of Missouri. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court on December 22, 1919.
A writ of error was allowed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and a bond approved, in terms of a supersedeas, in the sum of $2,000. This bond contains the provision:
"This obligation is not intended to in any
The jurisdiction was invoked because of al-wise affect the continuing liability of the prinleged violation of rights under the Fourteenth cipal and sureties on a bond heretofore given Amendment. The complainants were taxpay- in the circuit court of Lafayette county upon ers of North Dakota, who alleged that suit an appeal taken by the Missouri Pacific Railwas brought on behalf of themselves and all way Company to the Supreme Court of Misother taxpayers of the state. There was no souri from a judgment rendered in said circuit diversity of citizenship and jurisdiction was court against said company in favor of the Mcrested solely upon the alleged violation of conGrew Coal Company, which judgment has been stitutional rights. The District Court rendered affirmed in said court." a decree dismissing the bill on the merits; the judge stating that he was of opinion that there was no jurisdiction, and directing the dismissal on the merits to prevent delay, and to permit the suit being brought here by a single appeal. There is no allegation that the loss or injury to any complainant amounts to the sum of $3,000. It is well settled that in such cases as this the amount in controversy must equal the jurisdictional sum as to each complainant. Wheless v. St. Louis, 180 U. S. 379, 21 Sup. Ct. 402, 45 L. Ed. 583; Rogers v. Hennepin County, 239 U. S. 621, 36 Sup. Ct. 217, 60 L. Ed. 469.
The parties to the bond given on appeal from the trial court are not parties to the bond on the writ of error in this court.
Mr. Edwin A. Krauthoff, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM. Considering the motion to vacate the supersedeas herein, it is ordered that the plaintiff in error, within 20 days from the date of this order, furnish an additional bond in the sum of $20,000, to be approved by the clerk of this court, and in default of compliance with this order, the supersedeas hitherto granted to be vacated as prayed.
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
(253 U. S. 97)
of the grain at the place of destination at CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. Mc- the time when it should have been delivered,
(Argued and Submitted April 23, 1920. cided May 17, 1920.)
with interest, less freight charges, was $1,De- 422.11. The plaintiff claimed the difference between the two sums on the ground that the Cummins Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act made the above stipulation void. The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff, 252 Fed. 664, and the judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 260 Fed. 835.
1. STATUTES 219-COURTS NOT BOUND BY RULING OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMIS
SION AS TO VALIDITY OF BILL OF LADING. Whether a provision of a bill of lading, requiring loss or damage to be measured by the value of the property at the place and time of shipment, including freight charges, violates the statute, is a question as to the meaning of the statute which the courts must decide for
themselves, regardless of the determination of the Interstate Commerce Commission that the
rule is reasonable.
 *The Cummins Amendment March 4, 1915, c. 176, 38 Stat. 1196 (Comp. St. § 8604a), provides that the carriers affect. ed by the Act shall issue a bill of lading and shall be liable to the lawful holder of it "for any loss, damage, or injury to such property and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, or other limitation of any character whatsoever, shall exempt such common carrier * from the liability hereby imposed"
A provision of a bill of lading issued in November, 1915, for an interstate shipment, and further that the carrier "shall be liable requiring the amount of any loss or damage to be computed on the basis of the value of the property at the place and time of shipment, including freight charges, violates Act March 4, 1915 (Comp. St. § 8604a), making carriers liable for the full actual loss, notwithstanding any limitation of liability or of the amount of recovery, where the actual loss was more than the amount recoverable thereunder.
The Chief Justice dissenting.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Action by the McCaull-Dinsmore Company against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. A judgment for plaintiff (252 Fed. 664) was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (260 Fed. 835), and defendant brings certiorari. Affirmed. See, also, 251 U. S. 549, 40 Sup. Ct. 219, 64
for the full actual loss, damage, or injury notwithstanding any limitation of liability or limitation of the amount of recovery or representation or agreement as to value in any such receipt or bill of lading. or in any contract, rule, regulation, or in any tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission; and any such limitation, without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is hereby declared to be unlawful and void." Before the passage of this amendment the Interstate Commerce Commission had upheld the clause in the bill of lading as in no way limiting the carriers' liability to less than the value of the goods, but merely offering the most convenient way of finding the value. Shaffer v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 8, 12. In a subsequent report upon the amendment it considered that the clause was still valid and not forbidden by
*Mr. O. W. Dynes, of Chicago, Ill., for peti- the law. 33 I. C. C. 682, 693. The argutioner.
ment for the petitioner suggests that courts
Mr. J. O. P. Wheelwright, of Minneapolis, are bound by the Commission's determination Minn., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action for the loss of grain belonging to the plaintiff and delivered on November 17, 1915, to the defendant, the petitioner, in Montana, for transportation to Omaha, Nebraska. The grain was shipped under the uniform bill of lading, part of the tariffs filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, by which it was provided that
"the amount of any loss or damage for which any carrier is liable shall be computed on the basis of the value of the property at the place and time of shipment under this bill of lading, including freight charges, if paid." The petitioner has paid $1,200.48, being the amount of the loss so computed, but the value
that the rule is a reasonable one. But the question is of the meaning of a statute and upon that, of course, the courts must decide for themselves.
 We appreciate the convenience of the stipulation in the bill of lading and the arguments urged in its favor. We understand that it does not necessarily prevent a recovery of the full actual loss, and that if the price of wheat had gone down the carrier might have had to pay more under this contract than by the common law rule. But the
*question is how the contract operates upon this case. In this case it does prevent a recovery of the full actual loss, if it is enforeed. The rule of the common law is not an arbitrary fiat but an embodiment of the plain fact that the actual loss caused by breach of
For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
a contract is the loss of what the contractee would have had if the contract had been performed, less the proper deductions, which have been made and are not in question here. It seems to us, therefore, that the decision below was right, and as, in our opinion, the conclusion is required by the statute, neither the convenience of the clause, nor any argument based upon the history of the statute or upon the policy of the later Act of August 9, 1916, c. 301, 39 Stat. 441 (Comp. St. §§ 8592, 8604a) can prevail against what we understand to be the meaning of the words. Those words seem not only to indicate broad general purpose but to apply specifically to this very case.
fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven,, and all of the Interstate Commerce Commission,' approved acts amendatory thereof, and to enlarge the powers June twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and six, as reads as follows, to wit:
""That any common carrier, railroad, or transportion from a point in one state to a point in another tation company receiving property for transportastate shall issue a receipt or a bill of lading there
for, and shall be liable to the lawful holder there
of for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered, or over whose line or lines such property may pass, and no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company from the liaability hereby imposed: Provided, that nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under existing law,' be, and the same is hereby, amended so as to read as follows, to wit:
The Chief Justice dissents for the reasons stated by the Interstate Commerce mission.
"That any common carrier, railroad, or transCom-portation company subject to the provisions of this act receiving property for transportation from a point in one state or territory or the District of Columbia to a point in another state, territory, District of Columbia, or from any point in the United States to a point in an adjacent foreign country shall issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor, and For many years, if not, indeed, from the origin of shall be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any railroad transportation in this country, common loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by carriers by railroad have sought, by provisions in it or by any common carrier, railroad, or transporshipping contracts, bills of lading, tariff publica-tation company to which such property may be detions, etc., to limit their common-law liability, not livered or over whose line or lines such property may only as insurers against loss or damage to property pass within the United States or within an adjacent received by them for transportation, but also as foreign country when transported on a through bill tort-feasors for loss or damage caused by their neg- of lading, and no contract, receipt, rule, regulation, ligence. One method was by a so-called release, ex- or other limitation of any character whatsoever, ecuted by shipper and carrier, and intended to be shall exempt such common carrier, railroad, or effective, whether the loss or damage was due to transportation company from the liability hereby negligence of the carrier or to other causes. The imposed; and any such common carrier, railroad, courts in different jurisdictions have differed as to or transportation company so receiving property the validity of such limitations and they have been for transportation from a point in one state, terthe subject of legislation in some of the states. ritory, or the District of Columbia to a point in another state or territory, or from a point in a state or territory to a point in the District of Columbia, or from any point in the United States to a point in an adjacent foreign country, or for transportation wholly within a territory shall be liable to the lawful holder of said receipt or bill of lading or to any party entitled to recover thereon, whether such receipt or bill of lading has been issued or not, for the full actual loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any such common carrier, railroad, or transportation company to which such property may be delivered or over whose line or lines such property may pass within the United States or within an adjacent foreign country when transported on a through bill of lading, notwithstanding any limitation of liability or limitation of the amount of recovery or representation or agreement as to value in any such receipt or bill of lading, or in any contract, rule, regulation, or in any tariff filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission; and any such limitation, without respect to the manner or form in which it is sought to be made is hereby declared to be unlawful and void: Provided, however, that if the goods are hidden from view by wrapping, boxing, or other means, and the carrier is not notified as to the character of the goods, the carrier may require the shipper to specifically state in writing the value of the goods, and the carrier shall not be liable beyond the amount so specifically stated, in which case the Interstate Commerce Commission may establish and maintain rates for transportation, dependent upon the value of the property shipped as specifically stated in writing by the shipper. Such rates shall be published as are other rate schedules: Provided further, that nothing in this section shall deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he has under the existing law: Provided further, that it shall be
NOTE.-The following is the report of the Inter-
By adoption of the Carmack Amendment, so called, to the act to regulate commerce, approved June 29, 1906, the Congress provided that a common carrier receiving property for transportation from a point in one state to a point in another state should issue a receipt or bill of lading therefor and be liable to the lawful holder thereof for any loss, damage, or injury to such property caused by it or by any common carrier to which such property might be delivered, or over whose lines such property might pass, and declared that no contract, receipt, rule, or regulation should exempt such common carrier from the liability thereby imposed. It was provided that nothing in that amendment should deprive any holder of such receipt or bill of lading of any remedy or right of action which he had at that time under existing law.
Since that time, beginning in 1913, with Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491, the Supreme Court of the United States has decided in a number of cases, all of which followed Hart v. P. R. R., 112 U. S. 331, that where the shipper has his choice of two rates, the higher carrying unlimited carrier's liability, and in "a fair, just, and reasonable agreement" declares or agrees that the value of his shipment is a certain sum, and thereby secures a reduced transportation rate, he is bound by that declaration or agreement, estopped from claiming or recovering more than that value in case of loss of or damage to the property, and conclusively presumed to have known the governing tariff.
On March 4, 1915, the following act, amendatory of the act to regulate commerce, and hereinafter called the Cummins Amendment, was approved:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that so much of section seven of an act entitled 'An act to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate commerce," approved February
unlawful for any such common carrier to provide
Many widely varying or diametrically opposed ideas have been expressed as to the effect of this amendment and as to what will be the lawful rates under present tariffs when it becomes effective on June 2, 1915. The commission has been urged to some expression in the premises. It has held a hearing on this subject, and the questions there discussed have been argued on briefs. From the best information it has been possible to obtain and the consideration it has been possible to give this matter within the limited time available, the commission expresses tentatively the views hereinafter in
The greater part of the freight transported moves under a bill of lading, which constitutes a receipt for the property and a contract for its carriage. Efforts have been made from time to time to secure the adoption and use by all carriers of a uniform bill of lading, but no such effort has been entirely successful. Several years ago protracted effort of that kind, assisted in so far as seemed appropriate by the commission, culminated in substantial agreement among the representatives of the shippers and the representatives of the carriers, excepting those in the Southern classification territory, as to the terms and conditions of what was then styled and has since been known as the uniform bill of lading. The commission gave its tentative approval and recommended its use, and since that time it has been in use except in the Southern territory mentioned, where a somewhat different bill of lading, commonly called the standard bill of lading, has
been and is in use.
it will be understood that he desires the property carried subject to the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading in order to secure the lower rate or, as it is termed in the classification, "the reduced rate." If the shipper notifies the agent of the initial carrier that he elects not to accept all the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading, the agent must print, write, or stamp upon the bill of lading a provision that in consideration of the higher rate charged the property will be carried at the carrier's liability, limited only as provided by law, but subject to the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading in so far as they are not inconsistent with such common carrier's liability.
The Western classification, which, speaking generally, applies in all of the territory west of the Mississippi river and Lake Michigan, contains a rule that, except as otherwise provided therein, when property is transported subject to the provisions of the Western classification the acceptance and use of the uniform bill of lading is required. It also contains additional provisions substantially like those cited from the official classification. All of the terms of the uniform bill of lading are printed in the classification, but the live stock contract form does not so appear. The live stock ratings are stated to be based upon values declared by shippers, not exceeding certain stated values "under contract."
Another rule is that in order that the consignor may have the option of shipping subject to the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading, or under the liability imposed upon common carriers by the common law and the federal and state statutes applicable thereto, different rates and different forms of bills of lading are provided, to be used at the election of the shipper. Under this rule, unless it is otherwise provided in the classification, property will be carried at the lower rates specified if shipped subject to all the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading. Property carried not subject to all the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading is to be carried at the carrier's liability, limited only as provided by common law and by the laws of the United States and of the several states in so far as they apply, but subject to the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading in so far as they are not inconsistent with such common carrier's liability, and in such instances a rate 10 per cent. higher, subject to a minimum increase of 1 cent per 100 pounds, will be charged. It is provided that if consignor elects not to accept all the terms and conditions of the uniform bill of lading he shall so notify the agent of the carrier at the time his property is delivered for shipment, and if he does not give such notice
The Southern classification, which, speaking in general, applies in the territory east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio and Potomac rivers, contains a rule that the reduced rates specified in the classification will apply only on property shipped subject to the conditions of the carrier's bill of lading, and that property carried not subject to the conditions of the carrier's bill of lading will be at the carrier's liability, limited only as provided by common law and by the laws of the United States and of the several states in so far as they apply. It provides that property thus carried will be charged 10 per cent. higher, subject to a minimum increase of 1 cent per 100 pounds, than if shipped subject to the conditions of the carrier's bill of lading.
The classification does not contain the terms of the The official classification, which, speaking gener- carrier's bill of lading, and, with one or two inally, applies in the territory east of the Mississippi | dividual exceptions, the terms thereof are not filed river and north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers, with the commission as a tariff publication or rate contains a rule that, except as otherwise provided, schedule. The classification provides that the rates when property is transported subject to the provi- on live stock will apply when the declared value sions of that classification the acceptance and use does not exceed certain values therein stated and of the uniform bill of lading, export bill of lading, that for each increase of 100 per cent. or fraction uniform live stock contract, and certain contracts thereof in the declared value there shall be an inwith men in charge of shipments, respectively, are crease of 20 per cent. in the rate. The classification required. The uniform bill of lading and the other does not contain any requirement that the live stock bills of lading or contracts are set out in full in contract must be used, but it does provide that the classification. agents must not issue more than one live stock contract on any one shipment. Some of the tariffs of the individual carriers in this territory contain released rates applicable to shipments of live stock which are conditioned upon certain declared valuations and upon shipments being made under the live stock contract, and such tariffs provide that higher rates will apply when shipments are not so made. The terms of the live stock contract are not incorporated in the tariffs and, with one or two individual exceptions, they are not filed with the commission as a tariff publication.
It is perfectly plain that the purpose of this law is, except as otherwise provided therein, to invalidate all limitations of carrier's liability for loss, damage, or injury to property transported caused by the initial carrier or by another carrier to which it may be delivered or which may participate in transporting it. The law does not specifically say that attempts so to limit the carrier's liability shall not be resorted to, but it declares them to be invalid and unlawful wherever found and in whatever guise they may appear. Obviously, therefore, neither the bills of lading or other contracts for carriage, or classifications or rate schedules of the carriers, should contain any provisions which are so declared to be unlawful and void.
Some of the carriers insist that if no changes are