JAMES J. HOOKER et al., Appts., v. MARTIN A. KNAPP et al., Appellees. NO 773. EAGLE WHITE LEAD COMPANY et al., Appts., v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Appellees. NO 774.
225 U.S. 302
32 S.Ct. 769
56 L.Ed. 1099
JAMES J. HOOKER et al., Appts.,
MARTIN A. KNAPP et al., Appellees. NO 773. EAGLE WHITE LEAD COMPANY et al., Appts., v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION et al., Appellees. NO 774.
Nos. 773 and 774.
Argued January 11, 1912.
Decided June 7, 1912.
Mr. Francis B. James for appellants.
Assistant Attorney General Denison and Messrs. Jesse C. Adkins and Blackburn Esterline, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 303-305 intentionally omitted]
Mr. P. J. Farrell for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Mr. R. Walton Moore for the Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co.
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 76c. schedule to a 60c. 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 [225 U. S. 282, 56 L. ed. ——, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761], 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.