ent violations thereof.41 And the Commission will generally dismiss a complaint where the carrier has voluntarily done all that the Commission would order it to do.42

§ 1083. Informal complaint.

An informal complaint showing date and weight of shipment, with allegation of unreasonableness of rate collected, is sufficient.43 And for this purpose an informal letter containing all the elements of a claim is enough.44 Commission holds that as it is an administrative body, it is not limited strictly by rules generally prevailing in the courts as to pleadings. Thus any memorandum filed, setting forth the nature of the claim and expense bills, showing shipments and amount paid, is sufficient.46 Neither the Act nor the rules of the Commission prescribe what act or acts shall constitute filing of claim for reparation. 47 The initiation of informal proceedings puts the matters in the hands of the Commission. 48 For example, after the institution of informal proceedings the matter cannot be adjusted merely by stipulation of the parties.49 Protest at the time is not necessary for the maintenance of a proceeding for subsequent reparation, as the Commission has power to make things right for past exactions as an ancillary power to its general jurisdiction to revise rates. 50

§ 1084. Complainant not coming with clean hands. The defendant has sometimes objected to the main

41 St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. Ry., 24 I. C. C. 360.

42 Alan Wood Iron & Steel Co. v. P. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 27.

43 Riverside Mills v. G. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 423.

44 Fiske & Sons v. B. & M. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 299.

45 Nollenberger v. Missouri Pacific Ry., 15 I. C. C. 595.

46 Gamble-Robinson

Commission

Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R., 19 I. C. C. 114.

47 Marian Coal Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R., 27 I. C. C. 441.

48 Ocheltree Grain Co. v. Chicago R. R. & P., 13 I. C. C. 238.

49 Swift & Co. v. Chicago & A. R. R., 16 I. C. C. 426.

50 National Refining Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 18 I. C. C. 389.

51

tenance of the complaint on the ground that the complainant did not come before the Commission with clean hands. Thus in one case before the courts of law, there was involved an order of the Commission forbidding the enforcement by defendants therein of a rule whereby they reserved to themselves, as initial carriers, the right of routing citrus traffic beyond their own lines and denied this privilege to shippers. The defendants contended that, even if the rule was unlawful, the complainants (shippers) were not entitled to relief, because they had used the privilege of routing for the purpose of securing rebates and desired to retain it for that purpose. In overruling this contention the court said: "With reference to defendants' contention, that the complainants before the Interstate Commerce Commission were there with unclean hands, it is only necessary to say, that, in this court, the Commission represents the public at large and therefore no participation by said complainants in the unlawful practice of rebates could bar relief."52 The public interested includes consignees, consumers and others, as well as shippers and producers or manufacturers. 53 A fortiori the fact that others associated with the complainants are acting illegally will not affect the validity of the complaint. Thus the fact that the members of a corporation organized to promote the marketing of livestock at a given city are violating the anti-trust law will not prevent the corporation from maintaining a proceeding to correct an unreasonable freight rate on livestock shipped to such city. So the fact that a certain association constitutes an illegal monopoly will not affect the right of certain members of the association, constituting but a portion of its membership, to complain."5

54

51 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pacific Co., 132 Fed. 829.

52 Compare Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Penna. R. R., 181 Fed. 403, discussed in the next section.

53 Chicago Livestock Exch. v. Ch. Gt. W. Ry., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 428.

54 Cattle Raisers' Ass'n v. F. W. & D. C. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 513.

55 Tift v. So. Ry., 10 I. C. C. 548.

§ 1085. Scope of the doctrine.

57

On the other hand, the illegality of the demand of the complainant may be so directly involved in the recovery he asks as to bar him. Thus no reparation will be ordered for ceasing to give unpublished privileges. 56 And for a complainant to have a standing to demand reparation the lawful charges must have been paid by him. There are cases which unquestionably compel a peremptory dismissal, although the Commission does not inquire into equities not connected with the issue before it.58 And if the complainant has fraudulently acted in other transactions, the complaint will be dismissed.59 Of course, a demand should be denied, when to grant it would result in discrimination against the complainant's competitors.60 If it be shown that a rival is getting rebates,61 suit may be brought although the complainant was cognizant thereof. But where a shipper has himself enjoyed an unlawful rate, he cannot recover for unjust discrimination against a carrier for giving a competitor on like shipment a lower rate.62

Topic B. Parties to the Proceedings

§ 1086. Person interested as complainant.

Only a person interested in his own right can file a complaint. Thus a coal operator not being damaged by the failure of a railroad company to establish a rate upon a class of coal not produced at his mine, cannot complain of such a rate.63 The person aggrieved should complain in his own name; a complaint by a ticket broker having

56 National Lumber Co. v. S. P. L. A. & St. R. R., 15 I. C. C. 434.

57 Peale, P. & R. v. Central R. R. of N. J., 18 I. C. C. 25.

58 Lum v. G. N. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 558.

59 Sligo Iron Store Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R., 17 I. C. C. 139.

60 Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. St. P., M. & O. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 189.

61 Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 181 Fed. 403. 62 Penn. R. R. Co. v. International Coal Mining Co., 173 Fed. 1.

63 McGrew v. Missouri Pac. R. R., 8 I. C. C. Rep. 630.

65

no interest in the transaction will not be entertained.64 But as interest of the petitioner, by the provision of the Act, need not be direct, cases cannot be dismissed because complainant shows no damage. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to a dismissal of a complaint of unlawful rates, on the ground that the petitioners, being merely commission merchants, can sustain no direct or material damage under the rates in question.66 If a complainant dies after his complaint is filed, his representatives may be substituted as complainants.67 And a complaint may be brought by successor to corporation which was the original shipper.68 Whether an assignee can maintain proceedings in his own name to recover reparation was formerly not clear.69 But more recently an assignee has been allowed to recover damages.70

§ 1087. Requisites in this regard.

The fact that the complainant has not made a shipment and possibly may not be able to make a shipment for two years, is no ground for dismissing a complaint."1 That a complaining steamship corporation has no vessels, and that its stock is not paid in, is no objection to its rights to obtain from the Commission a ruling as to whether such company will be made a party to through routes when it is able to transport.72 The Commission is not deprived of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the controversy, merely because delegation to the officers presenting the complaint of the right to do so in the name

64 Otlinger v. So. Pac. R. R., 1 I. C. C. Rep. 604.

65 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. Pa., 15 I. C. C. 567.

66 James v. Canadian P. R. R., 4 Int. Com. Rep. 274, 5 I. C. C. 612; Milk Producers' Protective Ass'n v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 92; Central Y. P. Ass'n v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 193.

67 Bulah Coal Co. v. P. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 52.

68 Wood-Mosaic Flooring & Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 458. 69 O'Brien Commercial Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 1080.

70 Jubitz v. S. P. Co., 27 I. C. C. 44. 71 Lum v. G. N. Ry., 21 I. C. C. 588.

72 Flour City S. S. Co. v. L. V. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 179.

of the United States is not affirmatively shown.73 And clearly relief cannot be denied merely because of the suggestion advanced that other persons or places might be induced to seek like relief.74 Regardless of the standing of the original complainant, if subsequently letters are received from shippers asking to be made co-complainants, before submission of the case, it has been held that under all the circumstances proper parties were before Commission.75 In a recent proceeding a complaint against Rule 15 of Official Classification, as to a matter strictly inter partes, was dismissed because the issues presented were too broad and important to interests not parties.76 No other manufacturers having joined in the complaint, or made independent complaint, it is nevertheless possible that they may be materially affected by a disturbance of adjustment that has continued for so many years." The party at whose instance a proceeding is brought should be represented by some one able to give full and specific information as to the nature and extent of its business and specific commodity it handles.78

§ 1088. Complaint by an association.

A corporation whose object is to promote the marketing of livestock at Chicago in the interest of its members may, under section 13, maintain a proceeding to correct an unreasonable freight rate on livestock shipped to Chicago, as its members, for whose general benefit and protection it was formed, have a vital interest in such a proceeding." So a Milk Producers' Association, whether

73 United States v. U. P. R. R., 28 I. C. C. 518.

74 Casassa v. P. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 629.

75 Cincinnati & Columbus Traction Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R., 20 I. C. C. 486.

76 Kleibacker v. L. & N. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 420.

77 National Syrup Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 673.

78 R. R. Com. of Montana v. N. P. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 407.

79 Cattle Raisers' Ass'n v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. R., 7 I. C. C. Rep. 513; Chicago Livestock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. R., 10 I. C. C. Rep. 428.