# Opposition Brief — Armour & Co. v. Alton Railroad > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0347%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1941 - **Citation:** 312 U.S. 195 ## Text Blank Page tie 2 . fF bh . SFP 9 —_— _ - | E INTHE | — Court of the United States ; Octoser Tzrm, 1940. yA : No. 293 | | y | 2 ARMOUR AND COMPANY, a Corporation, : "A ; ; neh Petitioner, | ‘ vs. THE ALTON R AILROAD COMPANY Y, A. Corporation; ET AL., Respondents. a oe 3 : fae _ _. CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS AND LOUISVILLE RAILROAD COM- -___-RANY; PATRICK H. JOYCE AND LUTHER M. WALTER, TRUS- TEES OF CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY; AND NORMAN B. PITCAIRN AND FRANK C. NICODEMUS, JR., RECEIVERS OF WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY, RESPOND- ty 7 ENTS, IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI. 3 : 4 | iy . , Meyer Morton, % 1 Maa eB ELMer W, Freyraa, | : 2 . /| Bryce L. Hawron, : | Frank H. Towner, . BRIEF ON BEHALF OF. HOLMAN D. PETTIBONE, TRUSTEE OF Counsel for said Respondents. | THE QUNTHORP- WARREN PRINTING COMPANY, 210 WEST JACKSON, FHICAGO ic . “cp e e . Ps Q 7 : « ~] / oo i 8 a ‘ * ° INDEX. Opinions in Courts OS Sea an EnenaE eee Aa a org 1 Statement of Case, Sete es itt e ee eeseees maweeg ys ‘35 Summary of Argume nt: ee eee a HERS pO ee ee +e Argument . » , : c (a) The action is not one for loss or damage.... (b) The case requires a decision as to the reason- ~ ableness ef Respondenit’s practices and as to what is ineluded in transportation, and prior resort to the Commission is necessary...... 8 (c) The ease es not one for, the courts even if there . is no alleged: violation of the Interstate Com- oe RS See CURDS na One gene parE rr ea | -(d) The complaint does allege a violation of ‘the _ Interstate Commerce Act....,.........:... 14 (e) The deliveries required by Petitioner com- pelled a payment of the yardage charges of - the Stockyard Bee Se a A Ea gee 16 SREB REISS sige dE agra apa ae ee ‘18 . red me ie > ii | if Cases Crrep. : Adams v. Mills, 286 U.S. 397:............ eee A. T. &8. F. Ry. v. U. 8., 295 U. 8. 193.-.... raay 2, 8,9 Aron v. Penna. R. Co., 10 Fed. Supp. 156; 80 Fed. (2), SNES ERT AER receipts le et oi ME a non A. T. & S. F, Ry. v. Commission, 335 Ill. 70........... 15 Adolf Gobel v. Carriers, 200 I. C..C. 606..... ENE 13 Allied Packers v. Carriers, 144 I. %. C. 377; 161 1, O41, ...... PMN AE Ae any Og re ean Se, tiie ae PRIS 12 B. &.O. R. R. v: Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U.S. @i..3.: 11 Board v. G. N. R. Co., 281 U. S. 412......... teseeeee 2 Camp v. Gress, 250. U. kg eo A aaa: Sea eee _ Covington Stockyards v. Keith, 139 Wy Ws ee ekeees 12 - Director-General v. Viscose Co. 254 U.S. 498. hte wane 2 Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U: 8. 115...: 18 Eastern Ry. of N. M. v: Littlefield, 237 U. §. 240.....'.. 12 EK. Kohn’s Sons Co. v. ae 192 I. C C. 705; 73° Fed. (2) 948.........0000- Bence Merk Bere 12. _G.N.R. Co. v. Merckants Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285, .9, 14 General ete. Corp, v. Eldorado ete. Co., 308 U.S. 422. 12,18 Hygrade - te, %. v. Carriers, 195 I. C. C.-553..... io » BT I. C. Ry. Co. v. Mulberry Coe] Co., 238 U.S. 275...... 12 Keogh v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 260 U.S. Ss. ae Loomis v. L. & R.-Co., 240 U. 8. 48.0.0... cece ee eee 12,14 - Louisville Cement Co. v. U. S., 19 Fed. Supp. 910..... 16 » Mitchel! Coal Co. v. Penna. R. Co., 2:0 U.S. 247...... 1 Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Penna. R. Ca., 230 U.S. 304.. “il | Midland Valley. R.-Co. v. Barkley, 276 U.S. 482.. -- 12,1 & Medusa ete. Co. v. I. C. R. Co., 287 Ill. App. 549..... Te. en has ee oe : iii N. P. B. Co, v:Solum, 247 MEA atte We Penna. R. Co. v. Clark Coal Co., 238 U.S. 456...,.... | Penna. R. Co. v.. Puritan Coal Co., 237° U, | ee as ; - Penna. R. Co. v. International Coal Co., 230 U. 8.184... 15 , | Robinson v. B. & O. R. Co, 222 U. 8.506... ° TLS Standard Oil Co, v. U.'S,, 283 U. 8. 235...6....6y - 212 1 St. L. B. & M. R. Co. v. Brownsville Dist., 304 U. S.. : BSD Scinpwnaccctvess Vnarmenavhes ease te eis seret es .2 Southwestern ete. Co. v. Carriers, Bt a: | 12 ~ Swift & Co. v. Carriers, 238 I. C. C.179......... Suissa '. Strauss ete. Cor-v’ Carriers, 153 I, C. C. 609; 188 Pon PSR” SSR en oree Pe ieee 12 _'T.& P. Ry. Co. v. Abilene ete. Co., 204 T.'S. 426... 11, 14 T. & P. Ry. Co. v. “American ete Co., 234 U. S. 138.. 11 Terminal R. R: Assn. v. Commission, $04 Til, 312..... 13 | US Y.&T. Co. v0.8, 308 U, 8. 218..°.... pe 2, 18 > U. S. v. American ete. Co., 301 6. We OU Vars seceeen - 10 W.& ACR. Ca. v. Commission, 267 U. 8. 498.......... 12. - Y.&@M.V.R. Co. v. Mullins, 249 U.S. 531..........,. 18 £ SraTuTEs Crrep. a i , interstate Commerce Act. ) Section. 13), 49 U. S. OQ. Bois ns vats ys Pawhuce nes r 3 ‘Section "6(7), 49 U. 8. C. Aeeee cece ee old 14 Section 15(5), 49 U.S.C. A.. erate fee A pieces ae Hlinois Public Utilities Act, Til Rev. ‘Stat. 1937, Chap- ter 111- 2/3 RP Pye Dirge renee eee m es aired 13 “*s ° ° ~ * ° ’ P . . . Ps . © a : ’ ‘ ° ¥ - v e t ,. . m™ . ° . +. ; ae as stated. For many years Petitioner has owned and operated a meat packing plant-adjacent to the Stock Yards in Chi- ~ eago, Which Stock Yards are owned and operated by the Stockyard Company (Rk. 4). .Each of the Respondents. herein owns or operates a line of railroad serving the Stock. Yards (R. 4,5). Each Respondent designates Union Stock ~ Yards, Chicago, Illinois as being a station on its or their . line of railroad, the station thus designated . by. each Re- . *spondent consisting only of facilities owned by, the Stock- yard Company at the Stock Yards and used in making deliveries of livestock. consigned to partes located there _ (R. 6). Zeiphe 3 ‘In the course: of its inne, Petitioner _ purchased and shipped to itself at the Stock Yards over the. lines of Respondents, .niimerous shipments of livestock . (R. 8, 9) which, upon arrival at the Stock Yards; were then unloaded __ - and delivered to Petitioner (R. 10). In rendering the serv- ice, Respondents hauled the cars to the Stock Yards with - their own power, and upon arrival the livestock.was then ~~ unloaded by employees of the Stockyards Company through ‘the use of the facilities owned by the Stockyards Company (R. 8). After unloading, the animals were put into pens of. the Stockyards Company or were delivered to Peti- ‘toner and removed to its plant (R. 9, 10). None of the Respondents own any unldéading or storage facilities for livestock at the Stock Yards, and all animals _ consigned to that point were and are required. to be un- ldaded, stored or handled through -the use of or over facilities owned by the Stockyard Company (R. 7). The ‘Stock Yards dre -publie stock yards subject to the jurisdic- tion of the Sec retary of Agriculture under the Packers and Stock Yards Act (7 U.S. C. A.- See. 202) ‘(R. 7) and. the Btockyara Company is required to and does file: with the ‘Secretary of Agriculture its tariffs showing its charges. for all stock yarés services performed by it. For the services performed by it on livestock con- Be brought this suit in the Circuit Court of Coak County (R. . signed to Petitioner at the Stock Yards, each Respondent - colle ‘transportation charges from Petitioner in accord. ance with its tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce . Commission (hereinafter called the ‘¢Commissi i") or the : Illinois Commerce Commission (R. 7). Out-of the amounts | thus collected Respondents paid to the Stockyard Company H its charges for unloading the livestock, the assessment of - these charges ‘and their payment by Respondents being. j authorized by tariffs of the parties on file with the Com. } mission (R. 8).* : ‘ Under its tariffs on file with the Secretary of Agrivaltnp : (R. 11, 35, 36) the Stockyard Company also collected from : Petitioner a yardage charge on such livestock (R. 14, 15), ; the yardagé charge being compensation. to the Stockyard : Company for the use of its facilities and property .by stich | animals after they—were unloaded. . Thus, Respondents’ § charges for: transporta¥ion and the. yardage charges of the Stockyard Company. were paid by Petitioner,. and the | charges of the Stockyard Company for unioading the live- stock were paid by Respondents. These practices have © obtained for many years (R. 6, 8, 10, 11). ed ae In 1933 Petitioner demanded the right to remove its live-. 4 stock from the Stock Yards without payment of the yard- © “age charges of the Stockyard Company (R. 11, 12) and § . served notice upon the Stockyard Company and Respond. « ents that it would no longer pay tothe Stockyard Company © those yardage charges on livestock’ delivered to Petitioner -” through the Stock Yards. Upon the refusal. of the Stock- FE ‘yard Company to release livestock consigned to Petitioner © d without payment of such yardage charges (R. 11, 35, 36), : Petitioner agreed to pay the charges (R. 15) and thereafter = ' 38) seeking to recover all of the yardage charges which tt y had. thus paid to the Stockyard Company and to secure 4 © mandatory injunction requiring Respondents to make fi-. | \ +5 | arts Saar ture delivery of Petitioner’s livestock to it at the ‘Stock ae a Yards without the payment by it of, any charge i in addition = to that provided for i qn the tarifff’ of Respondents on file’ with.the Interstate and. State Commissions (R. Zi). : ; Petitioner does not claim any physical dainage to its a ‘livestock or that delivery of such livestock was not made * to it.at the proper destination. ‘Nor is there any claim ’ that. the charges paid by Petitioner were improper in- _ amount .or that they were not contained ip_tariffs on file --with the Federal and State Commissions or the § Secretary | of Agriculture.. The.claim actually made is that. Respond- | * ents should . delivered the livestock at the Stock Yards "been required to pay the yardage charges of the Stockyard Company (R: 16, 17). This delivery could only have been _ accomplished through the payment of the yardage charges - by Respondent, since deliv ery of livestock at the Stock Campany ini addition to. those used in unloading. - All charges*of misdelivery and failure to make delivery, contained i in the’Complaint (R. 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22). - are based Ypon the failure of Respendents to pay those yardage charges. Thus, the real questions presented’ for de- cision aré whetlfer the practices of Respondents in making __ delivery of the livestock at the Stock Yards were and are ' unreasonable, and whether the services of the Stockyard Company, for which it collected the yardage charges, were and are a part of the transportation of the livestock. aa at . under such cif umstances that ‘Petitioner would not. have . Yards can only be made by using facilities-of the Steckyard- —ananees 7 - a F 3 bad ; a -. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. = - a . be ee, ‘, . E Y ‘1 ae ‘This case. does not involve any question of loss of or damage to Petitioner’s livestock. For this reason, deci- . sions Telating t6 tRat subject have no application. of Respondent’ Ss present practices, with réspect to the de- livery of livestock at the Stock Yards, and the questioti of . - what is included within the transportation and delivery . of that livestock. These questions will not be ‘passed upon .= DB Surt in the absence of a prior adjudication by the Federal or State commissions. -(e) Even if. Petitioner’s complaint did not allege a violation of the Interstate Commerce Aet, the courts would still not act in this case. The right to proceed herein does” not result from a form of, words. (d) -The complaint actually does allege a viol. ition of | - tthe Interstate Commerce Act, in tha? the amounts sought to.be recovered are said to’ be due Petitionet because of Respondents’ failure to have on file a tariff justifying the collection of the gmounts. | 2 a ees (ey Under the facts alleged i in ‘the icouiplasnt Roaeks ents con not have made’ delivery of Petitioner's livestock in accordance with the billing instructions without using the facilities of the Stockyard Company. Petitioner’s. method ae) of consigning these shipments compelled a use of those facilities, with a ‘consequent obligation te pay the charges of the Stockyard ey: . + 4 ——— {(b) _ railroads voluntarily. ° Under Section 15(5) of the Inter- - | a when a.common carrier“receives propert, {6r transporta- tion, it has a: legal obligation to deliver such property at . the proper destination to the proper consignee. For the ° purpose of this argumerit, it might also be admitted that”: generally speaking, suits for loss, damage, injury to or mis- delivery of property. by eer carriers wai Properly, _—-But the case thade by Petitioner’ S complaint i is not a case ents did not fully discharge their duties with respect to the . s | transportation and delivery of Petitioner’s livestock ia. that the livestock were not delivered in such fashion that age. charges of the Stockya4rd Company. The decision of ~this question requires a decision on the reasonableness of “* Respondent’s. present practices and a determination of & _ that livestock. Decisions in suits for loss, damage and mis- delivery have no application to these questions. “(b) Genérally speaking, the duty of loading and unload: - ing carload freight rests upon a shipper: or consignee. The - contracts under which Petitioner’s livestock were shipped tariffs provided otherwise (R. 29). But.at the Stock Yards , : the practice. has-long-been otherwise. A. T. dS. F. R. Co. v. US., 295 YJ. S. 193, 198, 199. Prior to 1920, the unload- state Commerce Act (49 U. S. C? A. Sec. 15(5)) the obliga. [7 tion to pay these chatges was placed upo:. the railroads. -+~ There: still remained, however, the ica whether the . a a — ae éigaieeot over. fhie-qiiestion ied to the décision i in 4 T. “@ 3. PF. R. Carv. U. S.; 295 U.S. 193, The Interstate Com- _theree “Aet does not define transportation beyond providing, in paragraph 3 of Section 1 (49 U.S. C. A., See. 1(3)), that the term transportation, shali include locomotives, ete>and all instrumentalities¢ and facilities . of shipment, and all services in cormection with the receipt, ‘delivery, ete: of. property transported. Thus, while delivery i is included in the term transportation, the statute: does riot say what i is. - meant thereby. . ‘It cannot be assumed that the obligation of Respondents - to deliver Petitioner’s livestock at the Stock Yards included : an obligation to give -a free delivery of that livestock through the” use of the facilities of the Stockyard Com- pany. No] provision of the Interstate Comnierce act i imposes ' such an obligation upon Respondents, nor is it’ imposed ' by. their contract of transportation. To determine what was ytroperly- included in.the transportation and delivery, of: Petitioner’s livestock at.the Stock Yards, and whether Respondent’s present practices are reasonable, requires: a consideration of inany ‘intricate facts and cireumstan¢es in connection with the handling of the shipnients. a aa determination, ‘is committed to the exclusive : prim ry , jurisdiction of: the Federal and State Commissions. The rule is that where an inquiry. is essentially one| of fact or.requires consideration of intricate facts of trans- portation or customs or usage, the courts will not act} in ihe absence of a prior determination by ‘the Commissijon. In G. N. Ry. Co. v. Merchants Elevator .Go., 259 * 285, the question before this Court was the legal. ¢ struction of a tariff. This Court held that under n- he circumstances there pr esent a court would have jurisdic- . tion, but: took occasion to say (p: 291) that initiai- resort to the Commission must be had where it? is. necessary to determine upon evidence the- peculiar meaning of words we . . a P ‘eb ‘ ‘ ry “ : ~ % ad 4 coal : ‘ . sion’s exclusive primary jurisdiction has been applied to many phases of, car rier activity, such as the reasonable- Tess of rates, car distribution, allowancés to shippers, a classification of tommadities, routing, etc.: 7. é P. R. Co.- 1 v. Abilene ete. Co., 204 U. 8. 426; B. é O. R. Co. v. Pit- cairn Coal Co., 915 U. S. 481; Robinson v. B. é O. R. Co.,. ° 222 U. 8. 506; Mitchell Coal Co. v. Penna. R. Co., 230 U.S. 246, 256; Morrisdale Coal. Co. v. Penna. R. Co., 230 U. Ss. 804, 313; T. & P. R. Co. v. American Tie Co., 234 U. S. 138; 146; Pine, R. Co. v. Clark Coal Co., 238 U. Ss. 456, 469 ; 7 held that resort to the Commission was necessary, saying. as railroad, which are the ‘exact- issues presented in this - 2 sion’s primary jurisdiction, and one. decision so holding =F. a 1 -Ipomis ¥. Lehigh Valley R:€o., 240 U. S. 43, 50; Northeri Racific R. Co. v. Selum, 247 U. S. 477, 482; Director Gen eral v. Viscose @o., 254 U. S. 498, 500; Keogh v. C1. dN W. R. Co., 260 U. S, 156, 163; W. &A. R. Co: v. Commis sion, 267 U. S493, 497; Midland Valley R. Co. Vv. ‘Barkley 276. U.S. 482, 484; Board v. Great. Northern R. Co., 28) UL & 412, 420-424; Standard. Oi Co. v. U. S., 283 U. S 235, 238, 240; St. i B. & M. R, Co. v. Brownsville Dis trict, 304 U.S. 295 5, -General ete, Corp. v. / Eldorado etc Co., 308 U.S. 422. . There are no ‘cases ‘Wolding contrary to those to whicl "we ab cited... Petitioner’s brief (pp. 14, 15) refers. t the Pi . - field case, 237 USS. 140, and’ the Mailberry Hill,Coal Co ease, 238 U: S. 275, but these cases. are not applicable uritan Coal Mining Co. case, 237 U.S. 121, the Little All wf them were ‘referred to ‘and distinguished by. this Court in the Barkley case, 276 .U. S. 482, 486, 487. Coving ton Stock Yards v. Keith, 139 U. §. 128,. heavily relie upon by Petifioner, is not in point. That case. lays dow! genefal rules of law with respett to transportation am deljvery ot property by railroads, but the cause of actjo1 arose prior to the effective date of the Interstate €om merce Act.. If the case arose’ under the law now applica ble, there can be no doubt that the decision world be i u conformity with those we have cited. . : ‘The ‘precise, issues presented: for” POS ar in thi case haye™ been. submitted to the Commis ssion many times and have been decided by it under varying facts and it connection witl? deliveries at, various public stoekyards Examples of the exercise of the Commission’s jurisdictior are the-decisions in Southwestern ete. Co. v. Carriers 129 I.°C. C. 730, 737, 738; Allied ‘Packers v. Carriers, 14: LC. C.. 377, 382, 161 LC. C. 641, 645; Strauss etc. Int. v Carriers, 193 1. C. c. 609, 188 I. C. C. 487; E. Kahns. Son Co. v. Carriers, 192 I. C. ©. 705, 709, 710, 73 Fed. (2) 948 ‘2 ee . @e Pais oa oe Sees Hygrade etc. ‘Corp. v. Carriers, 195 L C. C. 553, the Com- mission also exer rcised | its primary jurisdiction to de- termine these issues at the Stock Yards in Chicago, , its , order being, revie owed’ and reversed . this Court in A. Under -these eireunistances the. court denied the claim. - (pp. 760, 761) upon the ground that a recovery would re- quire the court to decide ‘‘upon a subject which lies within , the special jurisdiction of the, Commission.’’ This deci- sion was affirmed at 80 Fed. (2) 100, where the Court of . Appeals held (p..101} that the question of whether the Services involved were a part of transportation was a question of fact, and (p. 103) that since there had been | no finding by the Commission with respect to the plain- ~ i 16 : i tiff’s claimed: damage, there could be no recavery in a ~ court of law. fe) Petitioner endeavors to poor the application of the cases we have cited by arguing at length that the de. livery of its livestock to: ‘tthe unloading facilities of. the Stockyard Company was a voluntary act on tlie part of Respondents ; that they could have made other deliveries of the livestock at, points within the station known as Union Stock Yards, Illinois, and thus avoided the i IMposi- ° tion of yardage charges of the Stockyards Company, and that sitice they voluntarily elected to make a delivery re sulting in the assessment of the charge, Petitioner should not suffer as a result thereof. ’ Thus, the Petition states that the. Stock: pas did not | constitute ‘the ‘station, Union Stock—Yards, Illinois, to © which the livestock was consigned: (p. 3); that Petitioner ; left the selection of the delivery point within the station # limits to Respondents (pp. 5, 17), and that. the Court of i" ‘Appeals has held that this election of Respondents de- prived the courts of jurisdiction in the case ¢p. 18). This “claim is reiterated atsnumerous places i in the brief, and is 3 laborateti at pages 21 to 32, both inclusive. Upon the | Rais of this argument,. the Petition assigns as a ground 5 for granting the writ a claimed | incoifsistency between decisions of this Court (pp. 5, 10- 15). In making this argument, Petitioner has misconceived | or overlooked the a’ gations of its complaint. Paragraph 4 of that complaint (R. 6) alleges the publication of rates i by Respondents to their statign known as, Union Stock * Yards, Illinois. Paragraph 9 (R. 8, 9) alleges the ship- ment of the livestock here involved to the station Union | : Stock Yards, Ilinois.. Paragraph 3 (R. 5, 6) alleges that. @ as to all livestock shipped to Union Steck Yards, -[hnow, Respondents use a common depot or stafion,for unloading P and delivering livestock, which ‘station is said to incjude itd 0X ate Pah Tas Be bisa inched ty Regen i - fee ee Pare ‘e oe: | 3 “the platforms, deities, pens and other facilities riecessary in the delivery of such livestock. - - Paragraph 4 (Re 6) alleges that the unloading facilities described in para- _ graph 3 are owned and operated by, and dre located on _ the property of, the Stockyard Company, and that they are the facilities which ‘‘have been designated and used. by each of the Defendants as their station.or depot known as Union Stok ‘+k Yards in the City of Chicago, Htinois, for. the delivery of livestogk.’’ Supplementing these charges are allegations that Re- spondents have no fagilities at Union Stock Yards, -Illi- _niois, for the unloading and. delivery of livestock other — than those lof the Stockyard Company (par. 7, R. 7); that—~ Respondents knew they~could not complete the transpor- tation. of Petitioner’s livestock. to Union Stock Yards, | Illinois, ex¢ept by. using the facilities of fhe Stockyard, Company (jar. 19, °R. 13), and that Petitioner’ s only de- sire is to ba per mitted to use the facilities of the- Stock- yard Company at Union Stock Yards, Hlinois, without expense (parr. 24, 25, R. 16). All this reduces to,allega- - tions that all shipments here involved were consigned to a station known as Union Stock Yards, "Ilinois; that that station consisted of: nothing but the unloading platforms and other facilities owned and operated ‘by ‘the Stockyard | Company and through the use of which livestock was’ un- loaded and deliv ered; and that there were no other facili- tiey.within the. limits of that station which could be ‘used ‘in unloading and delivering the shipments. . The complaint ‘contains no suggestion that Respondents could have delivered Petitioner’s livestock at U nion Stock Yards, Illinois, in any other manner than by using the facilities of the Stockyard Company. If results that by billing its livestock to. Union Stock Yards, Mlinois, Peti- “tioner compelled a use of facilities of the Stockyard Com- pany and a payment of its charges. And Petitioner was: ; _ 308 U. S. 422: We submit me the Petition for Certiorari G ra ‘ 18 . - fully aware ofthe fact, as the practice had been in effect - for many years (R. 6, 8, 10, 11). The claimed inconsist. - ency between the decisions of this Court is fanciful. See U.S. Y.& T. Co. v. U. S., 308 U, S; 213, 219. ‘1... 7? : Conclusion. The Petition and brief i in support thereof, contain vari- ous criticisms of the decision of the Court of Appeals, to ‘which we have made no answer, since we submit that no importance should, be attached to. these criticisms, even if” they were well- founded. Under the law, the decisions/of the District Court and the Court of Appeals” were corredt 4 fcr the reasons which we’ have assigned, and since a | correct conclusion has been reached, the niethods by which | those courts may have reached that conclusion are of no. consequence. Dinsmore v. Southern Express Co., 183 U:8. 115,121; Camp v. Gress, 250 U. S. 308,317; Y.&-3f. V. _R: Ca. v. Mullins, 249 U. S. 531, 532. | For the reasons assigned in the opinion of the Court: ‘of Appeals (R. 85), this is not a case which should remain | pending in court under the holding of this Court in Gen @ eral American Tank Car Corp. v. Eldorado Termindl Co., should be denied. Respectfully submitted, Meyer Morton, ELMer W. FReytaa, ‘Bryce L. Hami.ron, my Frank H. Towner, ar Attorness for said Respondents. . ew —— ’ ee ae 'S . i! vieeied baae ) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0347%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.