Charles Evans Hughes

“ Upon the merits, the appellants present the argument that a railway company, in the transportation or movement of an office car of another carrier, acts in the capacity of a private carrier, or bailee, and retains full freedom of contract in relation to such transportation. There is no doubt that common carriers, subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, may have activities which lie outside the performance of their duties as common carriers and are not subject to the provisions of the act. ”

“ In case such transportation relates to a through shipment the term 'destination' shall be construed as meaning final destination of such shipment.'
We find no provision of the applicable statutes which deprives a District Court of jurisdiction of a suit brought by a party entitled to attack an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission in accordance with these provisions as to venue. But the existence of jurisdiction does not mean that it must be exercised and that grounds may not be shown for staying the hand of the Court. ”

“ Santa Fe , Prescott & Phoenix Railway Company v. Grant Brothers Construction Company, 228U. S. 177, 188, 33 S.C.t. 474, 57 L. Ed. 787; Terminal Taxicab Company v. Kutz, 241 U.S. 252, 36 S.C.t. 583, 60 L. Ed. 984, Ann. Cas. ”