so decided has been erroneous, the Commission would feel it to be a duty to correct such conclusion.56 When a question of general public interest is involved, the Commission, in its own discretion and in furtherance of justice, may open a case to give parties the benefit of a more extended investigation of the same subject-matter; and this was done in a case where other parties in the same business had filed similar petitions, and the question was to be thoroughly reconsidered in connection with these other petitions. 57 A petition or motion for rehearing cannot be granted on mere allegation of error in the findings of fact; and such a petition or motion must be supported by proof of new facts or by specifically pointing out facts already in evidence showing prima facie at least that there was such error.58 It is clear that any order the Commission may make must be at all times subject to modification by it.59 The Commission has now complete power to suspend or modify its orders.60 It should be noted that, so far as the question of power is concerned, that has been given to the Commission in the clearest possible manner in the Act as amended. § 1065. Reopening a case for rehearing. An application to the Commission to reopen a case for rehearing is addressed to its discretion, like a similar application to a court; and will be decided upon the same considerations. A petition to reopen a case that has been decided, and for a rehearing, should show prima facie that some material testimony has been overlooked or misapprehended, or some error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law.61 So a case before the Commission will not 56 Re Petition of Toledo Produce Exchange, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 412, 2 I. C. C. 588. 57 Rice v. Western N. Y. & P. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 496, 3 I. C. C. 87. 58 Proctor v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Ry., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 374, 4 I. C. C. 87. 59 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry., 21 I. C. C. R. 400. 60 Loftus v. Pullman Co., 19 I. C. C. 102. 61 Myers v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 544. § 1063. The two-year rule. Orders of the Commission, by a provision in the Act, may continue in force for a period not exceeding two years. 50 But conversely orders with respect to rates are not conclusive beyond the period of two years.51 Moreover, Congress left the door open to the Commission to suspend or modify or set aside any of its orders at any time within the two years.52 But under the Act an order of the Commission shall remain in force for two years unless a different time is designated.53 A contention that if the Commission concludes a rate to be unreasonable it thereby automatically awards reparation covering the statutory period of two years prior to date of complaint, not sustained.54 Two years from date the carrier may voluntarily put the old rate in force.55 As a practical matter the advantage of submitting to a settlement in informal proceedings may be noted, as according to what is understood to be the current practice of the Commission, the order is made for one year, whereas in formal proceedings it will almost invariably run for two years. § 1064. New petition may be filed. When new conditions have arisen since the original investigation and report of the Commission neither the parties, as has been seen, nor others, are bound by the former finding. It follows that the new conditions need not be presented in a petition for a rehearing; a new petition may be filed, and this would seem to be the better course. This is clearly true where the parties to the new application were not parties to the former complaint; the new parties should file a new complaint, and if upon this new complaint it should appear that any conclusion in the former case 50 Douglas & Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 97. 51 National Hay Ass'n v. M. C. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 34. 52 National Hay Ass'n v. M. C. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 34. 53 N. Y. C. & H. R. R. v. Int. Com. Com., 168 Fed. 131. 54 New Pittsburg Coal Co. v. H. V. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 121. 55 Thely Grain Co. v. F. S. & W. R. R., 16 I. C. C. 28. so decided has been erroneous, the Commission would feel it to be a duty to correct such conclusion.56 When a question of general public interest is involved, the Commission, in its own discretion and in furtherance of justice, may open a case to give parties the benefit of a more extended investigation of the same subject-matter; and this was done in a case where other parties in the same business had filed similar petitions, and the question was to be thoroughly reconsidered in connection with these other petitions. 57 A petition or motion for rehearing cannot be granted on mere allegation of error in the findings of fact; and such a petition or motion must be supported by proof of new facts or by specifically pointing out facts already in evidence showing prima facie at least that there was such error.58 It is clear that any order the Commission may make must be at all times subject to modification by it.59 The Commission has now complete power to suspend or modify its orders.60 It should be noted that, so far as the question of power is concerned, that has been given to the Commission in the clearest possible manner in the Act as amended. 1065. Reopening a case for rehearing. An application to the Commission to reopen a case for rehearing is addressed to its discretion, like a similar application to a court; and will be decided upon the same considerations. A petition to reopen a case that has been decided, and for a rehearing, should show prima facie that some material testimony has been overlooked or misapprehended, or some error in the findings of fact or conclusions of law.61 So a case before the Commission will not 56 Re Petition of Toledo Produce Exchange, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 412, 2 I. C. C. 588. 57 Rice v. Western N. Y. & P. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 496, 3 I. C. C. 87. 58 Proctor v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Ry., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 374, 4 I. C. C. 87. 59 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry., 21 I. C. C. R. 400. 60 Loftus v. Pullman Co., 19 I. C. C. 102. 61 Myers v. Pennsylvania Co., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 544. be reopened in a supplementary proceeding brought simply to secure reparation, for the purpose of ruling on questions not decided in the original case, where the petition for reparation was not filed until long after the original decision had been rendered and the offending carrier had complied therewith.62 And after a complaint upon elaborate pleadings and proofs has been heard and determined by the Commission, an application for a rehearing, made only by those who were not parties to the proceeding, will not be granted.63 The Commission, however, will grant a rehearing if it is in the interests of justice. This may be the case, even though the finding of the Commission has been reviewed by the courts. In the one case 64 it appeared that the Circuit Court had refused to enforce the original order of the Commission, the Commission reopened the case, granted a rehearing, and modified its order, and renewed the order with this modification. If upon a rehearing of a case before the Commission, additional evidence warrants a finding contrary to what appeared and was found in the original hearing, the former order may be vacated.65 The general principle upon which petitions for rehearing would be dealt with was stated by the Commission in the first case of the sort,66 to be that when it had patiently and laboriously sifted out all the material facts necessary to fairly and justly present the merits of the controversy, with its conclusions thereon, the Commission had done all that the statute authorizes or requires it to do. 62 Rice v. Western N. Y. & P. R. R., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 455. 63 Re Petition of Toledo Produce Exchange, 2 Int. Com. Rep. 412, 2 I. C. C. 588. 64 Page v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry., 6 I. C. C. Rep. 548. 65 Bates v. Pennsylvania R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 296, 4 I. C. C. 281. 66 Riddle v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. R., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 773, 1 I. C. C. 490. CHAPTER XXIII PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION §1070. Provisions of the Act. 1071. Conduct of the proceedings. Topic A. Proceedings before the Commission § 1072. Procedure in regular course. 1073. Scope of the proceedings enlarged. 1074. Course of the pleadings. 1075. Raising the question of jurisdiction. 1076. Individual rate during general inquiry. 1077. Statement of the wrong. 1078. Sufficiency of the complaint. 1079. Answers in defense. 1080. Amendment to complaint. 1081. Responsiveness to pleadings. 1082. Application for relief. 1083. Informal complaint. 1084. Complainant not coming with clean hands. 1085. Scope of the doctrine. Topic B. Parties to the Proceedings § 1086. Person interested as complainant. 1087. Requisites in this regard. 1088. Complaint by an association. 1089. Board of Trade. 1090. State Railroad Commission. 1091. Intervening parties. 1092. Proper parties defendant. 1093. Necessary parties defendant. 1094. Who are parties in interest. 1095. Defendants must have an interest. 1096. One of several joint parties. 1097. Liabilities in through carriage. 1098. Who entitled to reparation. 1099. As between consignor and consignee. Topic C. Order of Procedure § 1100. Default for failure to proceed. 1101. Dismissal of the complaint. |