[Download] "Interstate Commerce Commission v. B & T Transportation Co." by First Circuit United States Court Of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Interstate Commerce Commission v. B & T Transportation Co.
- Author : First Circuit United States Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 21, 1980
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 76 KB
Description
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 forbids common carriers by motor vehicle to ""charge . . . a greater or less or different compensation for transportation or for any service in connection therewith between the points enumerated in such tariff than the rates, fares, and charges specified in the tariffs in effect at the time . . . ."" 49 U.S.C. ç 317(b). Bos-Taun Consolidating Co., Inc., is a local consolidator, with its only place of business in Somerville, Massachusetts, which had no tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) to cover its consolidation charges.1 B & T Transportation Co. is a certificated interstate motor carrier. On May 31, 1978, the I.C.C. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against B & T and Bos-Taun, alleging that defendants, acting together, charged customers for consolidating services with no tariff in effect reflecting the rate or charge for those services, in violation of 49 U.S.C. çç 316(b), (d), and 317(b).2 The I.C.C. bases its complaint upon the charge that B & T and Bos-Taun are owned, controlled, and managed in common as a single transportation enterprise. Bos-Taun's consolidation charges therefore should be deemed to be charges of B & T, the I.C.C. claims, and as such must be listed in tariffs on file with the I.C.C. The I.C.C. sought an injunction to restrain these activities pursuant to 49 U.S.C. ç 322(b)(1). The I.C.C. also sought, on behalf of the shippers who had used Bos-Taun's consolidation services, restitution of Bos-Taun's overcharges.3 The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The I.C.C.""s request for an injunction was denied on grounds of mootness, since it was found that B & T was selling its operating rights as a motor carrier and withdrawing from that activity. The district court denied the I.C.C.""s request for restitution on the ground that the Motor Carrier Act ""does not confer upon the I.C.C. the right to sue for recovery of damages."" The court noted that ç 304a of the Act authorizes shippers, the injured parties, to sue to recover charges made by a carrier in violation of the Act, but that neither the language of ç 304a nor its legislative history shows any congressional intent to allow the I.C.C. to seek damages for the benefit of injured shippers. On appeal, the I.C.C. challenges these two district court determinations.