Davis

(after stating the facts as above). [1,2] The legal question presented in this case can be stated in a very few words. It is this: Prior to the so-called Hepburn Act (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 ), and under the provisions of the Elkins amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act, was it competent for a common carrier, as an inducement to business, to enter into a valid enforceable contract with its shippers generally to transport freight in interstate commerce at a rate less than that specified in its published schedule of charges? Unless the question be answered in the affirmative, plaintiff is not entitled to recover herein, and this even though defendant be acquiescent toward such recovery, because a question of public policy is involved, and the courts will not lend their aid in the consummation of a judgment which is grounded in opposition to public policy. Beasley v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 191 U. S. *735 492, 498 , 24 Sup. Ct. 164, 48 L. Ed. 274 ; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U. S. 244, 298 , 25 Sup. Ct. 493, 49 L. Ed. 739 . The determination of this question involves a consideration of the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act as the same existed…