Search Supreme Court Cases
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. V. R. COMM'RS, 232 U. S. 338 (1914)
U.S. Supreme Court
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. R. Comm'rs, 232 U.S. 338 (1914)
Texas & Pacific Railway Company v.
Railroad Commissioners of Louisiana
Argued January 23, 1914
Decided February 24, 1914
232 U.S. 338
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts will not be disturbed by this Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.
192 F. 280, affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, filed its bill in equity in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to restrain the enforcement of an order of the Louisiana Railroad Commission fixing rates for the carriage of cottonseed and its products on the ground that the order exceeded the powers conferred upon the Commission by the state law -- indeed, was so unreasonably low as to be a violation of the due process clause of the state constitution. After issue joined, the testimony was heard by a special master, who found for complainant. The circuit court, on exceptions filed by respondents to the master's report, after reviewing the facts, gave judgment sustaining the exceptions, setting aside the report, and dismissing the bill on the ground that the evidence did not support the master's report -- in other words, that the complainant had failed to prove its case. On appeal to the circuit court of appeals the evidence was again reviewed, and the judgment affirmed. This appeal was then taken.
Both the courts below passed on the facts, and agreed in holding that appellant failed to establish by the evidence its right to the relief demanded, and the rule is well settled that findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts will not be disturbed by this Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Chicago Junction R. Co. v. King, 222 U. S. 222; Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Ass'n, 209 U. S. 20. As, from an examination of the record we, find no ground for concluding that there was plain error, the decree must be and is affirmed.
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.