§ 1078. Sufficiency of the complaint.

While the Commission is extremely liberal in construing pleadings, the Act necessarily implies that carriers shall be notified of the complaint which they are required to answer; and although no particular form is insisted upon, there must be a statement of the thing which is claimed to be wrong sufficiently plain to put the carrier upon its defense. It is not a matter of form, but of substance; even a letter setting forth sufficiently the nature of claim is enough to take rank as a complaint.96 And any general allegations in regard to a shipment showing the point of origin and destination, the consignor and consignee and the commodity and the billing are sufficient to constitute a filing of a complaint.97 There are no technicalities insisted upon in drawing complaints; 98 it is simply necessary to tell a straight-forward story; for the Commission never looks to the niceties of pleading. The mere fact that the word "overcharge" is used instead of "unreasonable exaction" will not be permitted to interfere with a trial of the substantial issue presented.99 As was said in one case, it was sufficient if the complaint states enough to put in issue a charge of undue prejudice.' But a complaint against all rates between two points is not sufficient; there must be specific attack upon specific rates. However, although a complaint is apparently indefinite, if it can be made definite at the hearing that will be enough.3 And in one proceeding an inference was drawn that the intention was to attack rates in both directions, though the complaint did not so specify.

A complaint showing

99 Clinton Refining Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 364.

1 Union Tanning Co. v. S. P. Co., 25 I. C. C. 112.

2 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry., I. C. C. 162.

19

3 Oskosh Logging Tool Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 109.

Beall v. W. A. & M. V. Ry., 20 I. C. C. 406.

67.

date and weight of shipment, with allegation of unreasonableness of rate charged the complainant, is sufficient." But a complaint against a rate "to Boston, New York and Eastern points" will only cover Boston and New York-"Eastern points" is too indefinite."

§ 1079. Answers in defense.

An answer which sets up a justification must clearly advise complainants of the facts and circumstances relied on as constituting such justification. Under the rules of practice issued by the Commission, a replication to an answer is not required or allowed. Matter which is not expressly in issue by the pleadings or necessarily involved in issues presented in a strictly inter partes case instituted by complaint before the Commission cannot be authoritatively determined by it. But technical defenses have no place before the Commission, and will not be permitted to defeat the broad principles of the Act.10 It should be noted that section 13 requires that every carrier complained of shall be supplied with a copy of complaint, and given an opportunity to answer. Oftentimes upon an examination of complaints, the Commission will request a conference between carriers and shippers to see if under its guidance arrangements satisfactory to all concerned may not be worked out, 12

§ 1080. Amendment to complaint.

The Interstate Commerce Commission is liberal in allowing amendments to complaints, but will not allow

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

Kiser Co. v. Central of Ga. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 430.

7 Raworth v. Northern P. R. R., 3 Int. Com. Rep. 857, 5 I. C. C. 234. 8 Oregon S. L. Ry. v. Northern P. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 639, 3 I. C. C. 264.

9 Commercial Club v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R., 6 Int. Com. Rep. 647.

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

11 Fels & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 23 I. C. C. 483.

12 Potato Shipments in Winter, 26 I. C. C. 681.

13

one that would be in effect making a new case.13 A complaint against a railroad company stating that it had been previously in the hands of a receiver, was allowed to be amended so as to show existence of receivership which it appeared on hearing was still in existence.14 But the Commission does not favor a practice of ingrafting an application for through routes and joint rates upon a claim for reparation.15 Where a complaint as filed did not ask reparation, but at the hearing a request for leave to amend in that respect was noted in the record, and there being no evidence touching specific shipments, that feature of case not considered by the Commission in disposing of the case. 16 Improper complaints cannot be cured by amendment so as to come within its scope." Thus if not asked in the complaint through rates cannot be asked in an amendment.18 It is not unheard of for an amendment of a complaint to be permitted after the hearing. 19 But when the two-year period has elapsed, the jurisdiction of Commission cannot be restored by amendment. 20

§ 1081. Responsiveness to pleadings.

In accordance with the general principles under discussion, no order will be made where there is no complaint covering the issue.21 Thus where there was no complaint in regard to any violation of the long and short haul clause, it was held that this possibility cannot be

13 Delaware State Grange v. New York, P. & N. R. R., 2 Int. Com. Rep. 187, 2 I. C. C. 309; Riddle v. Baltimore & O. R. R., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 701, I. C. C. 372.

14 Reynolds v. Western New York & P. Ry., 1 Int. Com. Rep. 685, 1 I. C. C. 347.

16 La Salle & B. County R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 610.

16 Atchison v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 22 I. C. C. 131.

17 Michigan H. M. Ass'n v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau, 27 I. C. C. 32.

18 La Salle & B. C. R. R. v. C. & N. W. R. R., 13 I. C. C. 610.

19 People's Fuel & S. Co. v. Gt. W. Ry., 27 I. C. C. 24.

20 Werner S. M. Co. v. Ill. C. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 380.

21 Refuge Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry., 27 I. C. C. 117.

considered in a petition attacking the reasonableness, relatively and per se, of the rates in question.22 Upon a complaint alleging undue preference, where the new tariffs are suspended, the question of the reasonableness per se of the rates is automatically imported into the case.23 But in a complaint not attacking the reasonableness of a rate per se, no conclusion on that point can be reached by Commission.24 And where at a hearing for the first time a claim was made that wool rates in different parts of New England were not properly adjusted, it was held that this should have been duly called to the attention of the Commission by a proper complaint.25 On the other hand, it is the duty of the Commission as an administrative body to pass upon all rates presented in a complaint.26 And conversely where specific rates are attacked the Commission generally speaking will confine the inquiry to them.27 While stations named in complaint may furnish a guide to the proper adjustment of the remaining stations, the Commission must necessarily confine itself to the pleadings, and make no finding concerning rates to the remaining stations.28 As has already been pointed out, unless reasonableness of rates is raised by the complaint, no finding thereon will be made.29 In view of the policy of the Act, reasonableness and reparation should be combined in one complaint.30 If a reduction of rates is asked and favorably acted upon by the Commission, the complainant cannot later file a complaint in another case, asking for reparation for past exactions.31 Where the statements as filed showed overcharges, but bills of lad

22 Chamber of Commerce of Augusta v. S. Ry., 22 I. C. C. R. 233.

23 Douglas & Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 21 I. C. C. R. 97.

24 Holland Blow Stave Co. V. A. C. L. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 81.

25 Massachusetts-Maine Wool Rates, 28 I. C. C. 396.

26 Eastern Case, 20 I. C. C. 243.

27 Sanford v. Western Express Co., 16 I. C. C. 32.

28 Omaha Grain Exchange v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 28 I. C. C. 680.

29 Davies v. Louisville & W. R. R., 18 I. C. C. 540.

30 Delray Salt Co. v. M. C. R. R., 18 I. C. C. 247.

31 West Texas Fuel Co. v. Texas & P. Ry., 17 I. C. C. 491.

ing produced in evidence covering shipments showed no overcharge, there is no basis for an order by the Commission presented by the pleadings. 32 The fact that the issue raised by the petition is not as broad as it might have been if other carriers had been made parties, can furnish no warrant for a refusal to pass upon matters clearly embraced within it.33 But with only one carrier as party defendant, issue cannot be broadened to embrace matters which were brought into existence by other carriers, and for which defendant alone is in no sense responsible.34

§ 1082. Application for relief.

A general or blanket application for relief from section 4 will be held sufficient by the Commission, there being nothing in the clause prescribing the form, contents, or breadth of the application to be filed thereunder.35 But the filing by a carrier of an application for relief from section 4 does not preclude a determination of a complaint under section 3 involving the same general territory.36 A holding by the Commission that rates in general are reasonable, does not preclude complaint of the consideration of particular rates.37 A complainant should not attack one rate with idea of later complaining thereafter if successful that through rates are greater than sum of locals.38 But a fourth section application will be considered with complaint attacking rates covered by application. If only reparation is asked there will be no action directed against the maintenance of the present rate. 40 Awards of reparation by the Commission are based upon violations of the Act in the past, not for pres32 Esson Granite Co. v. S. Ry., 26 I. C. C. 449.

33 Chattanooga Feed Co. v. A. G. S. R. R., 22 I. C. C. 480. 34 Ibid.

35 Southern Furniture Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Ry., 25 I. C. C. 379.

36 Mayor & Council of Boston v. A. C. L. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 50.

37 Ferguson Saw Mill Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S., 18 I. C. C. 391.

38 National Petroleum Ass'n V. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 284.

39 Board of Trade of Morristown v. A. C. L. R. R., 24 I. C. C. 372.

40 Gamble Robinson Co. v. No. Pac. Ry., 14 I. C. C. 523.