ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - CONCLUSIVENESS OF DECISION

Authors

Abstract

Pursuant to an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the government had paid defendant $487,116.31 as the deficit incurred during federal control and due defendant under section 204 of the Transportation Act of 1920. The Commission later reopened the proceeding and annulled the order because it had erroneously interpreted the word "deficit" in the statute to mean a decrease in net railroad operating income in the federal control period as compared with the corresponding months of the test period from July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1917, instead of a "red ink deficit." The government then sued to recover the money. Held, that the Commission was acting within its jurisdiction in interpreting the statute, and no method of review was available even though the Commission committed error. Butte, Anaconda and Pacific Ry. v. United States, 290 U. S. 127, 54 Sup. Ct. 108, 78 L. ed. 103. (1933).

Recommended Citation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - CONCLUSIVENESS OF DECISION, 33 Mich. L. Rev. 120 (1934).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol33/iss1/9