235 U. S.

Opinion of the Court.

between him and Braker, but upon the terms of the will creating the trust and the duty which the law imposed upon the Trustee because of his fiduciary position. And a proceeding by the beneficiary or his assignee for the enforcement of rights in and to the property, held—not in opposition to but-for the benefit of the beneficiary, could not be treated as a suit on a contract, or as a suit for the recovery of the contents of a chose in action, or as a suit on a chose in action. Upham v. Draper, 157 Massachusetts, 292; Herrick v. Snow, 94 Maine, 310. See also Edwards v. Bates, 7 Man. & G. 590; Nelson v. Howard, 5 Maryland, 327.

The beneficiary here had an interest in and to the property that was more than a bare right and much more than a chose in action. For he had an admitted and recognized fixed right to the present enjoyment of the estate with a right to the corpus itself when he reached the age of fiftyfive. His estate in the property thus in the possession of the Trustee, for his benefit, though defeasible, was alienable to the same extent as though in his own possession and passed by deed. Ham v. Van Orden, 84 N. Y. 257, 270; Stringer v. Young, Trustee, 191 N. Y. 157; Lawrence v. Bayard, 7 Paige, 70; Woodward v. Woodward, 16 N. J. (Eq.) 83, 84. The instrument by virtue of which that alienation was evidenced,-whether called a deed, a bill of sale, or an assignment, was not a chose in action payable to the assignee, but an evidence of the assignee's right, title, and estate in and to property. Assuming that the transfer was not colorable or fraudulent, the Federal statutes have always permitted the vendee or assignee to sue in the United States courts to recover property or an interest in property when the requisite value and diversity of citizenship existed. Barney v. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280. The equity jurisdiction of such courts extends to suits by heirs against executors and administrators (Security Co. v. Black River Bank, 187 U. S. 211, 228) and to suits against

Trustees for the recovery of an interest in the trust property by the beneficiary or his assignee.

The conclusion that § 24 of the Judicial Code did not deprive the District Court of jurisdiction, to enforce complainants' interest under the assignments executed by the cestui que trust, was foreshadowed in Ingersoll v. Coram, 211 U. S. 335, 361. That was a proceeding by an assignee to enforce an equitable lien on an heir's interest in an estate. In that case it was claimed that because the assignor could not have sued in the United States court, neither could the assignee maintain his Bill therein. The case was disposed of on another ground but the court said that "it is certainly very disputable if an interest in a distributive share of an estate is within the statute."

That language was used in reference to a suit for the recovery of part of a fund in the hands of an executor, who held primarily for the payment of the testator's debts. There the legatees, distributees and assignees had no such vested interest in specific property as is the case here where all of the property in the hands of the Trustee was held for the purpose of paying the income to Braker until he reached the age of fifty-five, when the corpus was to be delivered to him [or to his assignees] in fee. That interest was transferable and the purchaser was not precluded by § 24 from suing in the United States court for the interest so transferred.

This view of the record makes it unnecessary to discuss the question as to whether the Executors of Wood could in any event be treated as assignees of the character referred to in § 24 (Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cranch, 305, 306), since their title was cast upon them by operation of law. The nature of the case is also such that we cannot consider the effect of an assignment of $35,000 out of the $50,000, if it shall appear that the trust estate in the hands of the Trustee consists of property and not of money. These are questions which the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York has jurisdiction to hear and determine between these residents and citizens of different States.

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE

Decrees reversed.

RAILROAD COM

PANY v. FINN AND OTHERS AS RAILROAD COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY.

No. 546. Argued December 11, 14, 1914.-Decided January 5, 1915.

Where the jurisdiction of a Federal court is invoked because of questions raised under the Federal Constitution it extends to the determination of all questions presented, irrespective of the disposition that may be made of the Federal questions or whether it is necessary to decide them at all. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 U. S. 576. While the rule applicable to the Interstate Commerce Commission that an order made indisputably contrary to the evidence, or without any evidence, is arbitrary and subject to be set aside, may also be applicable to orders of the Kentucky Railroad Commission, in this case held, that there was substantial evidence to support the order establishing rates and the Commission had jurisdiction under the McChord Act to make the order reëstablishing a former rate. Where the evidence shows that special rates on a particular commodity were voluntarily established and were maintained for many years after the avowed reason for introducing them had ceased to exist, and the carrier's reason for an advance was not because they were inadequate but because they gave rise to discrimination, there is a reasonable inference that the advanced rates are unreasonably high which is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Kentucky Railroad Commission under the McChord Act to make an order reëstablishing the original rates and to support the conclusion that such rates were remunerative and should be reëstablished.

Where, in a proceeding before a state Railroad Commission, complaining shippers specified the amount of extortionate charges for which

reparation was prayed and the carrier admitted the rates had been charged and denied liability for reparation solely on the ground that the rates were reasonable, and there was evidence to support the charges that the rates were extortionate, and the record does not show that the carriers were denied an opportunity to introduce evidence, this court will not declare that an order of reparation was contrary to the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, either because of lack of evidence on which to base the amounts ordered to be paid or because, under the statutory procedure, there was no formal issue, or because the statute does not provide for compulsory production of evidence either before the Commission or in any subsequent trial before the court.

This court does not pass upon moot questions, and one seeking to strike down a state statute as unconstitutional must show that he is within the class with respect to whom it is unconstitutional, and that he has been injured by the unconstitutional feature.

Where the record does not show that the party complaining suffered for lack of compulsory process or that he will be prevented in a subsequent trial from producing evidence, he cannot be heard to object to a statute as unconstitutional because it does not provide for compulsory process or contains restrictions on admission of evidence. 214 Fed. Rep. 465, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the validity of orders of the Kentucky Railroad Commission establishing rates and awarding reparation and the constitutionality of the statute under which the orders were made, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edward S. Jouett and Mr. William A. Colston, with whom Mr. Henry L. Stone was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Edward W. Hines, with whom Mr. J. V. Norman, Mr. James Garnett, Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, and Mr. Charles C. McChord were on the brief, for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case was here on a former occasion (Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Garrett, 231 U. S. 298), when an order

235 U.S.

Opinion of the Court.

denying a motion for an interlocutory injunction was affirmed. The suit was brought by the Railroad Company to enjoin the enforcement of two orders made August 10, 1910, by the Railroad Commission of Kentucky, one of which prescribed maximum rates of freight upon certain intrastate traffic, and the other awarded specified amounts in reparation for payments previously exacted by the carrier for freight transportation in excess of the rates thus established by the Commission as reasonable. One of the grounds of attack upon the rate order was that the Commission had acted arbitrarily, in that there was no evidence before it tending to establish that the rates which the company had maintained were unreasonable. Upon the former appeal we held that since it appeared that there had been a hearing before the Commission with evidence adduced on each side, and since this was not produced before the court, the general allegations of the bill respecting the effect of the evidence, and the statements contained in the affidavits submitted upon the application for injunction, were insufficient to justify the court in enjoining the rates upon the ground that the Commission either had denied the hearing which the statute contemplated, or by its arbitrary action had been guilty of an abuse of power. With respect to the reparation order we sustained the action of the court below in declining to determine its validity, upon the ground that the persons in whose favor the award was made had not been brought in as parties.

After our decision, appellant filed an amended and supplemental bill bringing in as defendants the parties in whose favor reparation was awarded, stating with more particularity the grounds upon which that order was attacked, and, with respect to the rate order, setting out as an exhibit a transcript of the evidence introduced before the Commission. Upon this amended and supplemental bill appellant again moved for an interlocutory injunction.