Statement Opposing Jurisdiction — Independent Warehouses, Inc. v. Scheele

% wet

= 3 yer

SUPREME COURT des UNITED STATES

ed eae OCTOBER TERM, 1945

; th We

‘PNo. 196° Sie

ANDEPENDEST WARKHOUSES, «INC RENNSYLe |

FNTVRMILROAD COMPANY, ERIE. RAILROAD

COMPANY qspal AMES THOMBADY,

= ppellawt \

~ 7

. es ;

VILEEAM SCHEELE, Riconpen or THe. Towssit

Sspove River, aso THE TOWNSHIP OFS SADDLE

HIV IG ‘ | ;

aa

‘ 9 4

. PA ‘

¥ ! \ » A ALIS ( j

>

/ ‘- | 1 \

. STATEMENT OPPOSING JURISDICTION AND

MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

/ e

‘ ee. . .

Fe % a

7 o

“a

R an

‘

° ¢

' Pale .

INDEX

Supsect INpRx "4

' he ; Page

Statement opposing jurisdiction !

Motion to dismiss or- affirm ee a ee

pe

Tanie or Cases Crrep

: =

Erie RR. Co. v. Purdy, 185 U.S. 148, 22S. Ct. 605,

461. Ed. 847) Le 6

Federal Compress & W.-C. v. McLean, 291.U. S. 17,

548. Ct. 267,78 L. Ed. 622. 4,9"

‘Fischer v.St. Louis, 194 U.S. 341 Pre i)

General Oil Co. v. Cram, 209 U.S. 211, 28 S. Ct. 475, ae

a2 L. Ed. 754 eae t 6.

Great Horthers R. (' Os Vs Dondldson. 246 is. 12 1,

S.-('t. 230, 62 L. Ed. 616 6

MecK cg ' Tel. & Cable Coc vy. City of Little Rock, 250 .

U.S. 94, 39'S. Ct. 428, 63 L. Ed. 863 fe eae &

Schefe v. St. Louis, 194 0.8. 373, AS 7)

Susquehanna Coal Co. v. So. Amboy, Sox U.S. 665,72

S. C1. 712, 57 L. rig 1015 - ‘ — a

W.W. Cargill Co. .v. Minnesota, 180-U. S. 452, 21S.

Ct. 423, 45 L, Ea. 619 ner on

on ’ Cone Starere Crrey i .

-- Ordinance of the Township of Saddle River, See ¢

_Hon l 2

{

%

—4536

eee

te

;

‘

¢ .

ere

cs

~< =

_ SUPREME COURT: OF THE - “UNITED STATES

: ‘OCTOBER TERM, 1945

No. 1096

INDEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, INC., PENNSYL-

VANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, ERIE RAILROAD”

COMPANY ano JAMES THOMPSON,

rad / «Appellants,

f | VS. jo Sy ‘

WILLIAM ‘SCHEELE, Recorver of tHe Townsnir or

Sappte Rives, asp THE TOWNSHIP, OF SADDLE

RIVER. ;

= 7

‘

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF ERRORS.AND,APPEALS OF THE STATE

OF NEW .JERSEY

STATEMENT OPPOSING JURISDICTION

EE, A ‘ "0

An

The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals held valid

a municipal ordinance adopted by the Township of Saddle

River, a ao corporation of the State of New Jersey,

fixing a licende fee on warehouses of three-quarters of a

cent (% of 1¢) per Square foot of ground area, and. sus-

tained the-imposition on the Appellants, Independent Ware-

louses, Inc., and'James Thompson, its employef, of a penalty

’

poss.

9

-

of Two Hundred ($200.00) dollars for violation of Section 1

thereof on a charge of storing coal ina warehouse without

first having obtained a license therefor.

The New Jersey Court of Erorrs and Appeals found the

following facts:

‘*The essential facts are not in dispute. The storage

plant, commonly known as ‘Coalberg,’ is owned by the

Pennsylvania Coal Company, a -Pennsylvania corpo-

ration, dt comprises 6714 acres of land and buildings, °

( tracks, chutes, hoppers, seales, machinery and equip-

mént, The owner leased the yard in its entirety to

Independent Warehouses, Inc., a New. York corpora-

tion, at the nominal annual rental of one dollar. » These

corporations are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Erie

Railroad Company, a common carrier in interstate

commerce; and under agreements between these par-

ties, the plant is operated by’ the Pennsylvania Com-

pany *for the benefit and on behalf of,’ and at the

sole expense of the Erie Company’s trustees, ‘as a

public: service facility for shippers of prepared anthra-

cite coal on Erie lines desiring storage space in accord-

ance with and under the rates named in a certain tariff”

on file with the Interstate Commer¢e Commission. and

the Public Utilities Commission, of the State of New

Jersey, issued January 24, 1939,’ and any supplements

' thereto. The Erie’s trustees agreed to maintain an

agent at the yard authorized on their behalf’ to issue

warehouse receipts for coal placed therein ‘for storag<

“by shippers.’ The Pennsylvania Company undertook

to remit to the trustees, morithly, the net operating

surplus; and the trustees assumed the obligation of

‘reimbursement for the net operating loss, if any. . By.

express provisions, ‘taxes are incladable in the ‘allow-

able items of -expens@ chargeable against? operation

and maintenance. By this arrangement, the Erie’s

trustees sought to avert the diversion ‘of shipments of

a to other competing lines on which fa-

cilities for coal storage are available.’

“The agreement with Independent W arahouned Inc.

rea@ites that it was ‘the desire and for the interest’ of

ra

, ; aca

~»

a

a

«

-@

é

3

the Pennsylvania Company that the lessee should con-

duct upon ‘the premises the ‘general business of a ware-

houseman,’ and provides’ that the lessee shall de vote

the yard to such purposes, and shall furnish storage

therein for ‘any and all types of coal * * * tendered

to.it for warehousing for" the account or at the request

of ‘the Pennsylvania Company (if there shall bé avail-

able Storage space) at the rate of two cents per ton,

with a ‘minimum annual charge of $600. There was

also a provision for reimbursement of the lessee for

its losses, costs and expenses not classable as ‘ordi-.

nary.” By a supplemental agreement, the storage rate

was reduced to-one-half cent per ton, and. the annual

minimum charge to $500, The New York, Susquehanna

and Western Railroad Company has certain contract-

ual trackage rights’ at the yard, and the use of other

facilities. Independent Warehouses, . Inc. is engaged

in the publie warehouse business ‘at various places in

nine states.’, For some 15 years prior.to the agreement

with the Pennsytvania Company, Independent had

issued warehouse receipts for coal stored in this yard.

“The Pennsylvania Company owns and operates

anthracite coal mines in the State of Pennsylvania.

‘Coal sold at the mines is, by contract with the pur-

chaser, shipped in interstate eommerce, over tlie rail-

road of the Erie Company, and stored atthe Coalberg

vard until, at the shipper’s direction, it is again con-

"veyed by rail to its ultimate destination. For the

. ,in-transit storage, including unloading, reloading, and

the incidental services, the shipper pays to the carrier

a tariff charge of 28¢ per ton, Free stogage is permis-

‘sible fur as long as two. years. This storage is de-'

signed to meet seasonable deficiencies and shortages

due to the excess of consumption over production and

to facilitate the financing of purchases through nego-

table warehouse receipts, ali of which, it is said ad-

vance the géneral welfare as well as serve the particu-

a interests of the mine operators, shippers and

arriers. Erie’s Coal Freight Agent testified that,

weak because of seasonal conditions the supply exceeds

the demiand, ‘the operators bill’ coal ‘to storage, to

‘ :

—

" eepreereas

store it at ar advantageous point for reshipment;’ that

‘the shipper hasn’t enough orders to ship it out directly

{to destination;” that all the coal ‘is consigned.to Coal-

berg, Rochelle Park, for storage, billed-at the reguldr

tariff rates from the mine to the storage plant,’ and

‘it is held there awaiting orders from the consignee:

as. to what is to happen to it.’ This course “relieves

the car. situation,’ and it ‘also helps the operator to

continue operating.’

‘“‘There is an established tariff charge for the stor-

age; and the argument, in brief, is that through the

‘contract agencies’ of the Pennsylvania Company, as

the owner ot the plant, and Independent, as a ‘yubjic

wirehouseman,’ the Krie Company ‘ttilizes’ this fa-

cilities ‘solely to providg regular. tariff intransit serv-

ices to its shippers for interstate shipments of coal

from the Pennsylvania mines to ultimate destinations

through, and beyond, Coalberg,.with the facilities pro-

vided by the storage of the coal with a public ware-

houseman, as a regular transportation service facility

over its line, pursuant :to° the demands of shippe rs;’.

and that the ‘tariff charges for this intransit. service

are collected by the carriers directly from. the shippers,

and Erie, and participating carriers, bear the eutire

expense of the transit facilities.’ ;

‘But the coal is shipped to the purchaser or his

consignee at Coalberg, Rocheile Park, and freight

charges are collected at the rate prescribed for trins-

portation from the mines to that particular point, plus

storage and unloading charges; and, when the coal ts

reshipped, there is, as we have se@n;.a new billing, to.

the ultimate destination at the through interstate rate

from the: point of origin to the new des tination, plus

reloading charges, ‘as a continuance of the original

mterstate movement,’ and the-balance is paid by the

shipper at. Coalberg. The ultimate is not determined

until the owner gives shipping instructions. Compare

Federal Compress & W. Co: v. McLean, 291 U.S. 1,

54 S. Ct. 267, 78 L. Ed. 622. :

4)

?

.

“Thus the continuity of the carriage in interstate

commerce is broken when the carried commodity is un-

loaded and stéred at Coalberg for an indefinite period,

subject to the owner’s disposal and thereby the coal

becomes inter-mingled with the general mass of prop-

erty having a situs within the State, and subject to the

State’s dominion and liable to taxation as such; and

the stored coal retains that character and status

until it is again shipped in interstate commerce.”’

The Appellants have assigned as errors that thé ordi-

nance of the Township of Saddle River is repugnant: to |

the eommerce clause, deprives. them- of prenerty without

due process, and dénies them the equal protection of the

laws. ee , .

Bees eee

_The decision of the New Jersey Court of Errors and

sAppeals is not reviewable on this appeal becatise. the.

validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is not

drawn in question nor is the validity of a statute of any

state drawn in question on the ground of its' being repug-

_nant. to the Constitition, treaties, or laws of the United

States. The authority of the Township of Saddle River

under the laws of New Jersey to adopt the ordinance in

question was settled by the decision: of the New Jersey

Court of Errors and Appeals and is not open to attack here.

Fischer v, St. Louis, 194 U. S. 361; Sehefe v. St, Louis, 194,

U.-8. 373. :

o. - *

Any Federal. question that may exist in the present case

ias ben so explicitly foreclosed \by prior decisions as to

afford no basis for an appeal. - The present case is identical

With Susquehanna Coal, Co. v. S. Amboy, 228 U.S. 665, 35

S. Ct. 712, 57 L. Ed. 1015; Federal Compress & W. Co. v

6 |

ns ; ; . 3

. McLean, 291 0. S. 17, 54S. Ct. 267, 78 L. Ed. 622; General

Oil Co. v. Crain, 209 U, S. 211, 28 S. Ct: 475, 52 L. Ed. 754;

W. W. Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. 8. 452, 21S. Ct. 423,

45 L. Ed. 619.

—T 3

re a <> |

This Court will not review the findings of fact by the

New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals that the business

} of appellants, required to be licensed by the ordinance in

question in this: case, was not engaged i in Interstate Com-

merece, The record shows ample evidence to support the

findings and that is as far as this Court will énter upon ue

a consideration of the question, Great Northern R. Co.y. °

Donaldson, 246.U.58. 121, 88S. Ct. 230, 62 L. Ed. 616.

Soa ;

The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals held that +

‘“‘the re culation of foreign and ‘interstate commerce is a

subject within the exclusive jurisdiction of the C ongress”’

but that the ordinance in the present: case applied only

to intrastate commerce. This Court will accept the view

of the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals a’ to the

scope and operation of the ordinance so that ne Federal

question arising under the commerce clause of the Consti-

tution is here for determination.. Erie R. R. Co. v. Purdy,

185 U. S. 148, 22 S. Ct. 605, 46.L, Ed. 847. ,

~

There is’ no support in the ‘record that the Appellants

were deprived in any respect of due process of law or the

‘equal protection .of ‘the laws. A reasonable tax was im-

pose og on the Appellants applicable to all in the same general

7 Crete se

Ee s~efassification. ‘MacKay Tel, & Cable Co. v. City of Little

Rock, 250 U.S. 94, 39'S. Ct. 428, 63 L. Ed. 863.

For the above stated reasons the motion to affirm is

justified, if not. the:-motion to dismiss.

Respectfully submitted, |

Harry Lane,

‘

Counsel for Appellees. «

“f .

‘

ca ‘ .

© e ca

7 -* .

| : ,

“

“a

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1945

No. 1096 : 3

IXPEPENDENT WAREHOUSES, INC., PENNSYL-

VANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, ERIE RAILROAD

COMPANY axo JAMES THOMPSON,

Appellgnts,

vs.

Cosi

WILLIAM SCHEELE, Recorper oF THE Powkubie OF

Sabote River, axp THE TOWNSHIP OF, SADDLE

RIVER

e a)

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF RREORS AND APPEALS or THE STATE

;

_ OF NEW JERSEY

me

MOTION T@ DISMISS APPEAL OR AFFIRM DECISION

OF STATE COURT

~~

The Appellees, William Scheele, Recorder o ke Town-

tf Saddle River, and the Township. of Saddle River, a —

pal corporation of the State of New Jersey, maye to

*é the appeal herein on the.ground that il

eetts no substantial Federal question and a-further mové,*

a)

i

if the motion to dismiss is not rer ‘that this Court‘affirm

the decision of the New Jersey Court of Errors‘and Appeals °

on the grounds that the questions on whith the decision of

this cause depends are so unsubstasitial as to leave no.fur-

ther argument, al] as appears in the Statement Opposing

Jurisdiction of this Court filed herewith.

“. Harry Lang,

c—- ; Counsel for Appellees,

, "eon *

= (4536)

é ; 5

4 . - °

-

. :

~. ‘ :

iM

° e s

all ‘