Search Supreme Court Cases

HOOKER V. KNAPP, 225 U. S. 302 (1912)

U.S. Supreme Court

Hooker v. Knapp, 225 U.S. 302 (1912)

Hooker v. Knapp

No. 773, 774

Argued January 11, 1912

Decided June 7, 1912

225 U.S. 302



Decided on authority of Procter & Gamble v. United States, ante, p. 225 U. S. 282.

188 F. 242, 256, reversed.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the United States Commerce Court, are stated in the opinion.

Page 225 U. S. 305

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellants in these cases originally applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission for reduction of the maximum rates between Cincinnati and Chattanooga from the 76 schedule to a 60 schedule. The Commission refused to make the full extent of this reduction. Thereupon the respective parties filed bills in the Commerce Court, demanding that the Commission's order be "suspended, set aside, annulled, and declared void and of no effect," and that the individual defendants and the Commission be required by mandatory injunction to set aside and annul the said order, that the case be reopened, and the complainants given further relief. The two bills were consolidated. The individual defendants, the Commission, and the railroad company all demurred to the bill on the merits. The United States moved to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. The court took jurisdiction, but dismissed on the merits. These appeals were then prosecuted. The cases are in all respects controlled by the opinion announced and ruling made in the Procter & Gamble case, this day decided

Page 225 U. S. 306

(ante, p. 225 U. S. 282), and for the reasons in that case stated, these cases must be and are remanded, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and

It is so ordered.

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: HOOKER V. KNAPP, 225 U. S. 302 (1912)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.