security for such appeal; but such appeal must be taken within twenty days from the day of the rendition of the judgment of said circuit court. If the judgment of the circuit court shall be in favor of the party complaining, he or they shall be entitled to recover a reasonable counsel or attorney's fee, to be fixed by the court, which shall be collected as part of the costs in the case. For the purposes of this act, excepting its penal provisions, the circuit courts of the United States shall be deemed to be always in session."

In Council v. Railroad Co., 1 I. C. C. 339, 1 I. C. R. 683, the Commission declined to go into the question of a claim for damages for trespass, stating that a jury trial was necessary in such cases. See a similar holding, Heck v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 495, 1 I. C. R. 775; Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 594, 1 I. C. R. 787. In the case of Rawson v. Newport N. & M. V. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 266, 2 I. C. R. 626, the Commission said that the amendment of March 2, 1889, having provided for a trial by jury in suits on the Commission's orders of reparation, such orders could under that amendment be issued. For a time even after the amendment the Commission refused to issue money orders for reparation, leaving the matter to the courts, but a circuit court having decided that the failure of the Commission to act, barred the complainant, the Commission decided that it was its duty, where the facts and law authorized it, to make awards of reparation. MacLoon v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 5. I. C. C. 84, 3 I. C. R. 711, 715, 716. See also Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Chicago B. & Q. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 83, 89, 95. Section quoted. Blume & Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 15 I. C. C. 53, 55. Clearly the Commission has authority to make an award of damages. Washer Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 147, 153. Arkansas Fuel Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95, 98. The difference between the old law and the amended act of June 29, 1906, should be kept in mind when considering the decisions relating to the section prior to that amendment. A suit on an order of

the Commission is an independent suit, in which the court hears the case de novo, though the Commission's report is prima facie evidence of the matters of fact therein stated.

Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 614. This is true whether the Commission itself or an individual seeks to enforce the order of the Commission. Int. Com. Com. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 49 Fed. 177. Other evidence may overcome the prima facie effect of the Commission's report. Int. Com. Com. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 50 Fed. 295, 304; Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.. 56 Fed. 925, 934, 935. If order not obeyed, duty of Commission to apply to a court to enforce. Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 57 Fed. 1005, 4 I. C. R. 722. Courts can only enforce or refuse to enforce orders as made. Shinkle, etc., v. L. & N. R. Co., 62 Fed. 690; Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 74 Fed. 803, 841, 21 C. C. A. 103. Order not enforced because Commission failed to recognize "the element of the value of the service." Int. Com. Com. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 64 Fed. 723, 724. Section cited. Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 64 Fed. 981, 984, 13 U. S. App. 700. The Commission's report is analagous to that of a referee or special master in chancery. Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409, 414. The circuit court sitting as a court of equity has no jurisdiction of that part of the Commission's order relating to reparation. Int. Com. Com. v. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co., 82 Fed. 192. An order to be enforced must be definite and within the legal power of the Commission. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 83 Fed. 249. If, after a hearing, the court finds the facts different from those found by the Commission, the court will act on the facts found by it. Int. Com. Com. v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co., 85 Fed. 107. Act remedial and a hearing should be had, although the benefit to be derived from the order appears unappreciable. Int. Com. Com. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 94 Fed. 272. A decree enforcing order of the Commission may be suspended pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co.. 101 Fed. 146. Order not set aside unless error clearly appears. Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 102 Fed. 709. When the Commission has erred in the principles of law applied, the suit to enforce should be dismissed without prejudice to the right again to apply to that body. Int. Com. Com. v. So.

Ry. Co., 105 Fed. 703, 710; L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 44 L. Ed. 309, 20 Sup. Ct. 209. A bill will not lie to prevent discrimination under section three prior to action. by the Commission. Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 112 Fed. 823. Affirmed on another ground. 118 Fed. 113, 55 C. C. A. 63. Affirmed on another ground. 118 Fed. 113, 55 C. C. A. 63. Affirmed by the Supreme Court, with the statement, "for the purposes of decision, we assume that such rights as the plaintiff has may be enforced by bill in equity," (citing Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. R. Co., 99 Fed. 472), 192 U. S. 568, 570, 48 L. Ed. 565, 569, 24 Sup. Ct. 339. Burden on the carrier to show order erroneous. Int. Com. Com. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613, 622; Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 123 Fed. 597, 602, 603, 604; Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co., 146 Fed. 559. Affirmed. Cincinnati H. & D. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com. 206 U. S. 142, 51 L. Ed. 995, 27 Sup. Ct. 648. The court may adopt different grounds to arrive at the same conclusion as the Commission. Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 132 Fed. 829, 137 Fed. 606. Decree reversed. So. Pac. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. Courts cannot separate the legal from the illegal parts of an order of the Commission, and if any part is illegal, must refuse to enforce. Int. Com. Com. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 134 Fed. 942, 947. The findings of fact of the Commission should be separated from its arguments, opinions and conclusions. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co. v. Penn. Refining Co., 137 Fed. 343, 70 C. C. A. 23. Affirmed. Penn. Refining Co. v. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co., 208 U. S. 208, 52 L. Ed. 456, 28 Sup. Ct. 268. "Prima facie evidence of a fact is such as, in judgment of law, is sufficient to establish the fact; and, if not rebutted, remains sufficient for the purpose." Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 138 Fed. 753, 759. Affirmed. So. Ry. Co. v. Tift. 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. Section cited to show that Commission may sue in its own name to enforce its orders. Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 203, 40 L. Ed. 940, 942, 16 Sup. Ct. 666. This section applies to complaints brought under the

fourth section, notwithstanding the proviso of the last named section. Int. Com. Com. v. Alabama M. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 169, 170, 40 L. Ed. 414, 424, 18 Sup. Ct. 45. Under section eleven of the Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. L. 829, chap. 517), a supersedeas may be granted by the circuit court of appeals, when an appeal is granted on a suit brought under section sixteen of the Act to Regulate Commerce. L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 169 U. S. 644, 42 L. Ed. 889, 18 Sup. Ct. 502. Case dismissed without prejudice to right of Commission further to investigate comformably to the law announced by the court. L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 676, 44 L. Ed. 309, 320, 20 Sup. Ct. 209; East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 181 U. S. 1, 45 L. Ed. 719, 21 Sup. Ct. 516; Int. Com. Com. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 181 U. S. 29, 45 L. Ed. 729, 21 Sup. Ct. 512; Int. Com. Com. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 186 U. S. 320, 46 L. Ed. 1182, 22 Sup. Ct. 824. The statute gives prima facie effect to the findings of the Commission, and when these findings are concurred in by the circuit court, they should not be interfered with unless the record discloses clear and unmistakable error. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 142, 154, 51 L. Ed. 995, 1000, 27 Sup. Ct. 648; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 441, 466, 51 L. Ed. 1128, 1138, 27 Sup. Ct. 700. The parties at interest may proceed on the order of the Commission in the circuit court. So. Ry. Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, 437, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 1127, 27 Sup. Ct. 700. "The findings of the Commission are made by law prima facie true. This court has ascribed to them the strength due to the judgment of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience.' Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 206 U. S. 441, 454, 51 L. Ed. 1128, 1133, 1134, 27 Sup. Ct. 700.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

See notes Section 13 of act, Sec. 393, ante. Statute of Limitation. Shoecraft & Son Co. v. I. C. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 492 Blinn Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co., 18 I. C. C. 430. After determining a rate unreasonable, improper not to award reparation. Thompson Lumber Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 193 Fed.

682, Op. Com. Ct. No. 19, p. 319. See Thompson Lumber Co. v. Ill. C. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 657; Russe & Burgess v. Int. Com. Com., 193 Fed. 678. General statement of findings of the Commission sufficient. Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. American Hay Co., 219 Fed. 539. Ultimate facts should be stated. Meeker v. Lehigh v. R. Co., 236 U. S. 412, 59 L. Ed. 644, 35 Sup. Ct. 328.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Sections 205 to 217 inclusive should be read in connection with this section. Plaintiff in suits on an award of damages may introduce additional evidence. Missouri P. Ry. Co. v. Ferguson Saw Mill Co., 235 Fed. 474, 149 C. C. A. 20. Hearsay testimony before Commission disregarded. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Spiller, 246 Fed. 1, 158 C. C. A. 227. All right of recovery presumed to be included in the award made by the Commission. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ohio Valley Tie Co., 242 U. S. 288, 61 L. Ed. 305, 37 Sup. Ct. 120.

§ 407. Carrier Failing to Comply With Order for Reparation, Suit May Be Brought Thereon in United States District Courts, the Order Being Prima Facie Evidence of Right to Recover. If a carrier does not comply with an order for the payment of money within the time limit in such order, the complainant, or any person for whose benefit such order was made, may file in the circuit court of the United States for the district in which he resides or in which is located the principal operating office of the carrier, or through which the road of the carrier runs, or in any state court of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction of the parties, a petition setting forth briefly the causes for which he claims damages and the order of the Commission in the premises. Such suit in the circuit court of the United States shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages, except that on the trial of such suit the findings and order of the Commission shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and except that the petitioner shall not be liable for costs in the circuit court nor for costs at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless they accrue upon his appeal. If the peti