Professional Documents
Culture Documents
533
103 S.Ct. 1343
75 L.Ed.2d 260
PER CURIAM.
The District Court dismissed the matter for want of subject matter jurisdiction
and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 682 F.2d 811 (1982).
Characterizing the suit as a "simple contract-collection action," the court could
not "discern any proposition of federal law that a court need confront in
deciding what, if anything, can be recovered." Id., at 812.
Under the Interstate Commerce Act, as construed by this Court, the Court of
Appeals was in error. In Louisville & Nashville R. v. Rice, 247 U.S. 201, 38
S.Ct. 429, 62 L.Ed. 1071 (1918), this Court squarely held that federal-question
jurisdiction existed over a suit to recover $145 allegedly due the carrier for an
interstate shipment under tariffs regulated by the Interstate Commerce Act.
"The Interstate Commerce Act requires carrier to collect and consignee to pay
all lawful charges duly prescribed by the tariff in respect of every shipment.
Their duty and obligation grow out of and depend upon that act." 247 U.S., at
Other federal courts have had no difficulty in following the clear import of
Rice. See Madler v. Artoe, 494 F.2d 323 (CA7 1974); Bernstein Bros. Pipe &
Machinery Co. v. Denver & R.G.W.R. Co., 193 F.2d 441 (CA10 1951);
Maritime Service v. Sweet Brokerage De Puerto Rico, 537 F.2d 560 (CA1
1976).
So ordered.
In Rice, the parties had an understanding requiring the carrier to assess all
In Rice, the parties had an understanding requiring the carrier to assess all
charges immediately upon the delivery of livestock. This arrangement allowed
the shipper to include the transportation costs in the price at which the livestock
was sold. The dispute resulted from the carrier billing the shipper after the
delivery and sale of the livestock for an additional $145 to cover disinfecting
the freight cars. This additional charge complied with lawful tariffs.