Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States

1928-01-03
Share:

Headline: Federal agency order upheld forcing an interstate railroad to build a switch to a coal company’s private siding, allowing the shipper direct access despite state-law claims and the railroad’s objections.

Holding: The Court affirmed that the Interstate Commerce Commission may require an interstate railroad to construct and maintain a switch connection to a shipper’s private siding located within one State, rejecting the railroad’s challenges.

Real World Impact:
  • Allows shippers with private sidings to force railroads to build switch connections when statutory conditions are met.
  • Limits state law or court rulings from blocking federal agency orders over interstate rail connections.
  • Makes it harder for railroads to avoid connections by citing state track classifications or prior state proceedings.
Topics: railroad connections, interstate commerce, federal agency authority, state vs federal regulation

Summary

Background

J.K. Dering Coal Company, owner of a large Illinois coal mine, built a private track about three and a half miles to the right-of-way of a second railroad commonly called the Big Four. The coal company applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission under the statute’s paragraph 9, asking the Commission to order the Big Four to construct, maintain, and operate a switch connection to the private siding. The Commission held a full hearing, found the statutory conditions satisfied, and ordered the connection. The Big Four sued in federal court to set aside the order; the district court dismissed the railroad’s bill, and the case reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the federal agency had power to require a switch to a shipper’s private track located wholly within one State and whether later statutory provisions or state law stripped that power away. The Court held paragraph 9 remained effective, that provisions dealing with carrier-built extensions did not apply to a shipper-built siding, and that state statutes or state court declarations could not nullify the Commission’s federal authority. The railroad’s arguments about extensions, state-track classifications, and corporate power were rejected as unsupported by the statute and record. The Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal and the Commission’s order.

Real world impact

The decision confirms that, when the statute’s conditions are met, the federal agency can compel an interstate railroad to build a switch to a shipper’s private siding even if the siding and proposed connection lie inside one State. It limits state efforts to block such federal orders and clarifies that railroads cannot avoid the obligation by relying on state classifications or prior state proceedings.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases