149 U.S.

264
13 S.Ct. 837
37 L.Ed. 727

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

v.
ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO. et al.
No. 1,275.
May 1, 1893.

In Equity. This was a petition by the Interstate Commerce Commission

against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company the Atlantic
& Pacific Railroad Company, the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad
Company, the California Central Railway Company, the California
Southern Railroad Company, the Chicago, Kansas & Nebraska Railway
Company, the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, the St. Louis & San
Francisco Railway Company, and the Southern California Railroad
Company, to enforce an order requiring these companies to desist from
charging a greater rate for a shorter than for a longer haul. In the circuit
court the petition was dismissed on the ground that the 'circumstances and
conditions' shown were substantially dissimilar, thus justifying the
charges made. 50 Fed. Rep. 295. From this order of dismissal the
Interstate Commerce Commission appeals. Appeal dismissed.
The proceeding was brought in the circuit court under the sixteenth
section of the interstate commerce law, as amended March 2, 1889, (25 St.
p. 855, c. 382,) which gives to the interstate commerce commission a
summary remedy to enforce its orders by a petition to the United States
circuit court sitting in equity. The statute, as thus amended, provides that

'When the subject in dispute shall of the value of two thousand dollars or
more, either party to such proceeding before said court may appeal to the
supreme court of the United States, under the same regulations now
provided by law in respect of security for such appeal; but such appeal
shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the court, or the
execution of any writ or process thereon, and such court may, in every
such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as shall be

deemed reasonable.'
The motion to dismiss the appeal was based upon the ground that this
provision was repealed, in so far as it provides for a direct appeal to the
supreme court, by the judiciary act of March 3, 1891, (26 St. p. 826, c.
517,) and that the appeal should have been taken to the circuit court of
appeals, as the case did not belong to any of the classes in which that act
allows appeals to the supreme court direct.
Geo. R. Peck, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for the motion.
Wm. A. Day, opposed.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER.

The motion to dismiss is granted. McLish v. Roff, 141 U. S. 661, 12 Sup. Ct.
Rep. 118; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S., 144 U. S. 47, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Hubbard
v. Soby, 146 U. S. 56, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13; Railway Co. v. Osborne, 146 U. S.
354, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281.

Appeal dismissed.