Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 (1907) (No. 78)
1907
Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 (1907) (No. 78)
Supreme Court of the United States
1907
Case name: Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co. Opinion filed: 1907-02-25 Docket No.: 78 Citations: • 204 U.S. 426 • 27 S. Ct. 350 • 51 L. Ed. 553 • 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1469 Case holding summaries: • denying a shipper's right to maintain a common law action against a common carrier for the exaction of alleged unreasonable rates, which were filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission • decided under Interstate Commerce Act • discussing price differentials in rail fares as discrimination and referring to law making it "a misdemeanor to offer, grant, give, solicit, accept, or receive any rebate from published rates or other concession or discrimination." • striking down state common law cause of action against carrier's allegedly unreasonable rates when ICC had previously determined rates to be reasonable • shipper challenging carrier's rate must seek redress initially through the Interstate Commerce Commission • no common law actions challenging rates established under the Interstate Commerce Act • "the act cannot be held to destroy itself" • explaining that the “fundamental question” was the “scope and effect” of the Interstate Commerce Act, and that the case “must rest upon an interpretation of the text of the act” • relying on the potential for conflicting rulings in conclud- ing that the Interstate Commerce Act required courts to refer questions bear- ing on the reasonableness of rates to the ICC • "a shipper seeking reparation predicated upon the unreasonableness of the established rate must, under the act to regulate commerce, primarily invoke the redress through the Interstate Commerce Commission" • state common law action preempted, despite existence of broad savings clause, where "preexisting right is so repugnant to the statute that the survival of such right would in effect deprive the subsequent statute of its efficacy...." • even though action existed at common law and statute authorized suit in federal district court or complaint before ICC, pl
