suit. A petition for the enforcement of an order for the payment of money shall be filed in the district court or State court within one year from the date of the order. In this connection attention may be called to fines and forfeitures provided in the Act for disobedience of the orders of the Commission which have already been set forth in section 1131. § 1159. Parties to enforcement suits. If a carrier does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, section 16 provides that an action for its enforcement may be brought by the complainant or any person for whose benefit such order was made. In such suits all parties in whose favor the Commission may have made an award for damages by a single order may be joined as plaintiffs, and all of the carriers parties to such order awarding such damages may be joined as defendants. If any carrier fails or neglects to obey any order of the Commission other than for the payment of money, while the same is in effect, the Interstate Commerce Commission or any party injured thereby, or the United States by its AttorneyGeneral, may apply to a district court of the United States for the enforcement of such order. When a case of this kind reaches the court on petition of the Commission, the complaint will be regarded as that of the Commission rather than as that of the parties who in the first instance induced the Commission to take action. If, after hearing, by the Circuit Court. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 191 Fed. 705. This provision regarding attorney's fees has been declared constitutional. Riverside Mills v. A. C. L. Ry., 168 Fed. 990; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. v. Feintuch, 191 Fed. 482. In a suit to enforce an order of the Commission awarding reparation for diverting a shipment from the specified route, plaintiff is entitled to an allowance for an attorney's fee on account of the appellate proceedings, in addition to the allowance made In a suit against the initial carrier to recover for loss of goods, no authority is given to tax attorneys' fees by section 8 of the Act. Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 55 L. ed. 167, 31 Sup. Ct. 164. 9 Interstate Commerce Commission v. D., G. H. & M. Ry., 57 Fed. 1005. the court determines that the order was regularly made and duly served, and that the carrier is in disobedience of the same, the court shall enforce obedience by a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain such carrier, its officers, agents, or representatives, from further disobedience of such order, or to enjoin upon it or them obedience to the same. In the case of a carrier which goes into the hands of a receiver after an order has been issued to it by the Commission, the court follows the same procedure in a suit for enforcement of the order as it would have followed if the railway had continued to be operated by its own officers.10 § 1160. Orders unenforceable because of defects. It sometimes happens that the Commission fails to give expression to its will in such a form that the courts will undertake to enforce it. It is perhaps not correct in such case to say that the order is invalid. It is nearer the truth to say that the Commission's pronouncement is not an order either in substance or in form, and hence there is nothing for the courts to act upon. Where an order of the Commission grants permission to the carriers against whom it is directed to charge lower rates on competitive traffic to longer distance points than are charged to intermediate points on non-competitive traffic, but directs that the rates to the longer distance points shall not be lower than the necessities of competition require, such order is a mere general statement of the duty of the carriers as defined by the Act, and is too indefinite to be enforced.11 A mere finding without an order is not enforceable. The Commission found certain lighterage allowances to constitute an unlawful rebate and prohibited them, but entered no order. In a suit to recover the allowances yet unpaid, the Circuit Court denied recovery on the ground 10 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. No. Pac. Ry., 83 Fed. 249. 11 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 249, refusing to enforce order of the Commission, Merchants' Union of Spokane Falls v. Northern Pac. Ry., 5 I. C. C. R. 478, 4 I. C. R. 183. suit. A petition for the enforcement of an order for the payment of money shall be filed in the district court or State court within one year from the date of the order. In this connection attention may be called to fines and forfeitures provided in the Act for disobedience of the orders of the Commission which have already been set forth in section 1131. $1159. Parties to enforcement suits. If a carrier does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, section 16 provides that an action for its enforcement may be brought by 'the complainant or any person for whose benefit such order was made. In such suits all parties in whose favor the Commission may have made an award for damages by a single order may be joined as plaintiffs, and all of the carriers parties to such order awarding such damages may be joined as defendants. If any carrier fails or neglects to obey any order of the Commission other than for the payment of money, while the same is in effect, the Interstate Commerce Commission or any party injured thereby, or the United States by its AttorneyGeneral, may apply to a district court of the United States for the enforcement of such order. When a case of this kind reaches the court on petition of the Commission, the complaint will be regarded as that of the Commission rather than as that of the parties who in the first instance induced the Commission to take action. If, after hearing, 8 This provision regarding attorney's fees has been declared constitutional. Riverside Mills v. A. C. L. Ry., 168 Fed. 990; Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. v. Feintuch, 191 Fed. 482. In a suit to enforce an order of the Commission awarding reparation for diverting a shipment from the specified route, plaintiff is entitled to an allowance for an attorney's fee on account of the appellate proceedings, in addition to the allowance made by the Circuit Court. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Dickerson, 191 Fed. 705. In a suit against the initial carrier to recover for loss of goods, no authority is given to tax attorneys' fees by section 8 of the Act. Atlantic Coast Line v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 55 L. ed. 167, 31 Sup. Ct. 164. 9 Interstate Commerce Commission v. D., G. H. & M. Ry., 57 Fed. 1005. the court determines that the order was regularly made and duly served, and that the carrier is in disobedience of the same, the court shall enforce obedience by a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain such carrier, its officers, agents, or representatives, from further disobedience of such order, or to enjoin upon it or them obedience to the same. In the case of a carrier which goes into the hands of a receiver after an order has been issued to it by the Commission, the court follows the same procedure in a suit for enforcement of the order as it would have followed if the railway had continued to be operated by its own officers.10 § 1160. Orders unenforceable because of defects. It sometimes happens that the Commission fails to give expression to its will in such a form that the courts will undertake to enforce it. It is perhaps not correct in such case to say that the order is invalid. It is nearer the truth to say that the Commission's pronouncement is not an order either in substance or in form, and hence there is nothing for the courts to act upon. Where an order of the Commission grants permission to the carriers against whom it is directed to charge lower rates on competitive traffic to longer distance points than are charged to intermediate points on non-competitive traffic, but directs that the rates to the longer distance points shall not be lower than the necessities of competition require, such order is a mere general statement of the duty of the carriers as defined by the Act, and is too indefinite to be enforced.11 A mere finding without an order is not enforceable. The Commission found certain lighterage allowances to constitute an unlawful rebate and prohibited them, but entered no order. In a suit to recover the allowances yet unpaid, the Circuit Court denied recovery on the ground 10 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. No. Pac. Ry., 83 Fed. 249. 11 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 83 Fed. Rep. 249, refusing to enforce order of the Commission, Merchants' Union of Spokane Falls v. Northern Pac. Ry., 5 I. C. C. R. 478, 4 I. C. R. 183. that the finding of the Commission without an order operated to remove the allowances from the carrier's tariff, and hence the carrier was no longer liable. But the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision and held that the mere finding of the Commission without an order had no effect on a published tariff, and hence the carrier continued to be liable.12 Since the orders of the Commission are not self-executing, they can be made effective only by the help of the courts. In proceedings for the enforcement of the Commission's orders, or for the collection of damages based upon the Commission's award of reparation, the carrier has opportunity to raise the question as to the validity of the Commission's action. If its order or award was invalid on any of the grounds discussed in the preceding sections, its order cannot be enforced nor can its award be reduced to judgment. § 1161. Power of courts to modify Commission's orders. In judicial proceedings for the enforcement of the orders of the Commission, the courts are not at liberty to mould them into a form in which they can receive approval. If the order is not lawful, the courts are without power to enforce it.13 The courts must take the order as it was made, and if it is not valid in that form, no relief can be granted.1 Their power is limited to an approval or disapproval of the order before them, and to the enforcement or refusal to enforce it as a whole or in part, as made by the Commission. 15 The court has no power, under the guise of enforcing an order of the Commission, to make a general adjustment of differences between litigants, or 12 American Sugar Refining Co. v. D., L. & W. Ry., 207 Fed. 733, 200 Fed. 652, 14 I. C. C. 619. 13 Southern Pacific Ry. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. 14 Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 74 15 Interstate Commerce Commission v. L. & N. Ry., 73 Fed. 409; Interstate Commerce Commission v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 134 Fed. 942. |