RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Clauson's Inn
DOCKET NO.: 40
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
CITATION: 371 US 115 (1962)
ARGUED: Oct 15, 1962
DECIDED: Dec 03, 1962
Facts of the case
Media for Gilbertville Trucking Company, Inc. v. United States
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 15, 1962 in Gilbertville Trucking Company, Inc. v. United States
Number 40, Gilbertville Trucking Company, Incorporated, et al., Appellants versus United States, et al.
Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.
And I have one application to make on behalf of the appellants which is a request for a leave, Mr. Starrett of Massachusetts here to argue pro hac vice.
Your motion is granted.
Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Loyd M. Starrett:
May it please the Court.
This case involves two working companies and various individuals who owns stock and worked with companies.
The case began a few days more than seven years ago when an application was filed for leave -- for approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission to merge these two companies.
An agreement had been made expressly subject to the approval of the Commission that the companies be merged by stock acquisition and later consolidation.
Statute involved the Section 5 (2) of the Interstate Commerce Act which is printed at page 81 starting at page 81 of the appendix to our brief.
Particular paragraph B on page 82, whenever a transaction, that includes a merger of this sort, is proposed the carriers seeking authority shall permit -- shall present an application in the Commission.
Commission shall take certain action, then the Commission shall approve if it finds that the merger is in the public interest.
Gilbertville is a fairly small general commodity carrier operating in New England and New Jersey.
Nelson is a specific commodity carrier, as far as interstate rates are concerned.
It's associated with the textile industry.
Also has general commodity authority intrastate into states.
Two and a half months after the merger application was filed then, an investigation was started by the Commission under Section 5 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act, an investigation to determine whether control or management of the two carriers in a common interest had been effectuated and was continuing.
These two proceedings were consolidated for hearing and later and gradually they grew more and more bound together as the Commission added decision after decision.
A lengthy hearing was held resulting in many pages of transcript for the trial examiner.
Participating in the hearing in addition to the applicants, representatives of the eastern territory railroads as protestants and 13 large competitors, motor carriers in New England as well as the Bureau of the Commission, that is the Bureau of -- ingoing compliance.
There were four issues presented to the trial examiner and to everyone else who decided the case.
One of these issues was whether there had been a violation of law that is control or management in the common interest one way or another.
Secondly, if there were, was that violation continuing?
Because a peculiarity of the Interstate Commerce Act is that the remedial authority of the Commission is to order such action as it's necessary to prevent continuance and other language of the section makes it very clear and the appellees don't contest that continuance is a prerequisite to their remedial jurisdiction.
Loyd M. Starrett:
Because these facts are rather involved as well as the statutes, I wonder if it wouldn't be well for you, if it wouldn't disturb your argument to state the facts of the case to us; the relationship of these two companies, the facts upon which the -- examine what the Commission acted.
I think it would help some of us anyway in understanding your case.