United States v. Terminal R. Ass’n, 236 U.S. 194 (1915)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 236 U.S. 190, click here.
United States v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
Nos. 452
, 572
, Original
Argued October 20, 1914
Petition submitted October 13, 1914
Decided February 23, 1915
236 U.S. 194
APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
Syllabus
Even though persons seeking to intervene on the settlement of a decree were not parties, and therefore cannot intervene in the court below, they may be entitled to be heard in this Court concerning the decree insofar as it may operate prejudicially to their rights.
Where both parties have appealed, one from the decree entered on the mandate of this Court and the other from denial of a motion to modify such decree, as the whole decree is before this Court, the dismissal of the latter appeal would not limit its power and duty to pass on the questions raised by it; the proper practice is to consolidate the appeals.
The decision and mandate of this Court in regard to a combination declared illegal under the Anti-Trust Act should not be interpreted as safeguarding one public interest by destroying another, or as making the movement of transportation freer in some channels by obstructing its flow in others.
The decision of this Court in 224 U.S. 383, explained, and the decree entered by the court below on the mandate modified so as to recognize the right of the Terminal Company as an accessory to its strictly terminal business to carry on business exclusively originating on its lines, exclusively moving thereon, and exclusively intended for delivery on the same.
The facts, which involve the construction of the mandate and decision in United States v. St. Louis Terminal Association as reported in 224 U.S. 383, and the effect to be given to such mandate and the further directions of this Court in regard thereto, are stated in the opinion.