Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. North Carolina Corporation Commission

Citation51 L.Ed. 933,206 U.S. 1,27 S.Ct. 585,11 Ann. Cas. 398
Decision Date29 April 1907
Docket NumberNo. 15,15
PartiesATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. NORTH CAROLINA CORPORATION COMMISSION
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. John G. Johnson, Warren G. elliott, and Frank P. Prichard for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 2-4 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Robert D. Gilmer and F. A. Woodard for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 4-6 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

Did the order of the North Carolina Corporation Commission, the enforcement of which was directed by the court below, invade constitutional rights of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, hereafter spoken of as the Coast Line, is the question which arises on this record for decision. A sketch showing the situation of the railway tracks at and relating to the place with which the controversy is concerned was annexed by the court below to its opinion, and that sketch is reproduced to aid in clearness of statement. [See next page.]

For years prior to October, 1903, the Coast Line operated daily an interstate train from Richmond, Virginia, through North Carolina to Florida. This train, known as No. 39, moved over the main track from Richmond to Wilson, North Carolina, thence by the track designated as the cutoff via Selma and Fayetteville to Florida. The train (No. 39) was scheduled to reach Selma at 2:50 in the afternoon and to leave at 2:55. The Southern Railway owned or controlled a road in North Carolina which crossed the Coast Line main track at Goldsboro and the cut-off track at Selma. On this road there was operated daily a train from Goldsboro via Raleigh to Greensboro, North Carolina, at which point connection was made with the main track of the Southern road. This Southern

[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]

train, known as No. 135, left Goldsboro at 2:05 in the afternoon and Selma at 3 o'clock. Thus at Selma it connected with No. 39 of the Coast Line. The Coast Line also operated in North Carolina the branch lines shown on the sketch, which radiated easterly, and served a considerable area of territory. These branches connected with the main track at Rocky Mount, a station 42 miles nearer Richmond than Selma. At Rocky Mount there also was a connection with a Coast Line road running from Pinner's Point, near Norfolk, Virginia. Over this road also the Coast Line operated a train, which left Pinner's point in the morning and connected with the Coast Line train No. 39 at Rocky Mount. The departure of the train in question from Pinner's Point was so arranged as to enable boats timed to arrive at Norfolk during the night or early morning to make, by ferry to Pinner's Point, a morning connection with the train. On the 3d of October, 1903, the Southern Railway notified the North Carolina Corporation Commission of a contemplated change of schedule on its line from Goldsboro via Raleigh to Greensboro. By the change, which was to go into effect on the 11th of October, Southern train No. 135, instead of leaving Goldsboro at 2:05, would leave at 1:35 in the afternoon, and would leave Selma at 2:25 instead of 3. As a result, the connection at Selma between the Coast Line train No. 39 and the Southern train would be broken. The North Carolina Corporation Commission, by letter, on the 6th of October, called the attention of the general manager of the Coast Line to the contemplated change of time by the Southern, and requested that line to advance the time of No. 39 to enable that train to reach Selma at 2:25, thus continuing the connection with the Southern. On the 12th of October the superintendent of transportation of the Coast Line answered. He stated that the schedule of train No. 39 from Richmond to Selma was already so fast that it was very difficult to make the connection at Selma, and that it would be impossible to advance the time of arrival at Selma as requested. It was besides represented that to do so would require a breaking of the connection made with the Norfolk train at Rocky Mount, and would disarrange the running time of the train south of Selma, and disturb connections which that train made with other roads south of that point. However, it was pointed out that as train No. 39 did not originate at Richmond, but was a through train, made up at New York, carried from thence to Washington by the Pennsylvania, and from Washington to Richmond by the Richmond, Fredericksburg, & Potomac, that negotiations would be put on foot with those roads with an endeavor to secure an acceleration of the time of the departure of the train from New York and Washington, so as thereby to enable an earlier departure from Richmond. On the 11th of October the change of time became operative and the connection at Selma was broken.

A complaint having been lodged with the corporation commission because of the inconvenience to the public thereby occasioned, both the Southern and Coast Line were notified that a hearing would be had concerning the subject on the 29th. On that day the railways, through their officials, appeared. The Southern represented that its change in time was because it was absolutely dangerous to operate its train at the speed required by the previous schedule, and, indeed, that the lengthened schedule was yet faster than desired. The Coast Line reiterated the impossibility of changing the schedule of train No. 39 from Richmond to Selma unless there was a change between New York and Richmond. It stated that there was to be a meeting in Washington on November 6 of the representatives of various roads in the South, and that it hoped, as the result of that meeting, to so arrange that No. 39 would be scheduled for delivery at Richmond at an earlier hour, thus enabling its time to Selma to be advanced. The commission continued the subject for further consideration. On November 9 the superintendent of the Coast Line advised the corporation commission that at the meeting in Washington it had been impossible to obtain an earlier departure of the train from New York and Washington, but that the Pennsyl- vania still had the matter under consideration. Finally, in answer to urgent requests from the commission, by a letter of November 13 and telegram of November 14, the Coast Line informed the corporation commission that it regretted it could make no change in its schedule of train No. 39 because the Pennsylvania railroad had definitely expressed its inability to make any change in the hour of departure of the train from New York, as to do so would be incompatible with the duties which the Pennsylvania railroad owed to the public, to other roads, and to its contracts concerning the transportation of the mail and express matter. Thereupon the corporation commission entered the following order:

'Whereas, the convenience of the traveling public requires that close connection be made between the passenger trains on the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad and the Southern Railway at Selma daily in the afternoon of each day;

'And whereas, it appears that such close connection is practicable:

'It is ordered that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad arrange its schedule so that the train will arive at Selma at 2:25 P. M. each day instead of 2:50 P. M., as the schedule now stands.

'It is further ordered that if the Atlantic Coast Line trains have passengersen route for the Southern Railway, and are delayed, notice shall be given to the Southern Railway, and that the Southern Railway shall wait fifteen minutes for such delayed trains upon receipt of such notice.

'This order shall take effect December 20, 1903.'

The Southern, on receipt of the order, expressed its intention to comply. The Coast Line addressed to the commission a letter protesting against the order, and requesting its withdrawal, and asking for a further hearing. The letter making this request reviewed the previous correspondence. It pointed out that the connection at Selma had been a very old one and that its breaking was solely caused by the act of the Southern in changing the time of its train. It declared that the Coast Line at once, on hearing of the intention of the Southern to make the change, urgently requested that road not to do so. On this subject the letter said:

'On October 6th, I further advised the Southern Railway that if their train was scheduled to leave Selma at 2:25 P. M. this would break the connection with our No. 39, and stated to them that the connection was a most important one, being the principal outlet for passengers en route from eastern Carolina to Raleigh and other points on their line, and that we hoped that they could see their way clear not to disturb the connection, as it was impossible for us to get No. 39 to Selma at an earlier hour than the present schedule, owing to the inability of northern connections to deliver the train to us at Richmond any sooner.'

Proceeding to point out the failure of the negotiations with the Pennsylvania, and recapitulating the previous statements concerning the rapidity of the schedule of No. 39 between Richmond and Selma, the exacting nature of its work and connections, the absolute impossibility of making it faster was insisted upon. Indeed, there was annexed to the letter a report of the time of No. 39 at Selma for a period of nearly five months, showing that the train had rarely made its connection at Selma.

The commission, after a hearing afforded officials of the Coast Line, suspended its prior order and fixed a day for a rehearing of the whole subject, both roads being notified to that effect. Upon the new hearing the matter was taken under advisement. On January 16 the commission stated the facts and its conclusions deduced therefrom. As to the operation of the two trains, their connection at Selma, the importance of this connection to the public, and the breaking of the connection by the change of schedule,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
272 cases
  • Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Public Service Commission
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 10 Mayo 1948
    ...a particular service at a loss if the system as a whole is operated at a profit. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Commission, 206 U.S. 1, 27 S.Ct. 585, 51 L.Ed. 933, 11 Ann.Cas. 398; Missouri R. R. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 262, 30 S.Ct. 330, 54 L.Ed. 472; Chesapeake &......
  • Sabre v. Rutland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 1913
    ...etc., v. Saratoga, etc., Co., 191 N. Y. 123, 83 N. E. 693, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 713; Atlantic Coast Line v. N. C. Corporation Comm., 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. 585, 51 L. Ed. 933, 11 Ann. Cas. 398; State v. Bates, 96 Minn. 110, 115, 119, 104 N. W. 709, 113 Am. St. Rep. 612; State v. Railroad C......
  • State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1918
    ... ... General, against the Crescent Cotton Oil Company. Relief ... denied and relator appeals ... page 112, is as follows: "A corporation has such powers ... and such powers only, as are ... Cumming Cas. Pri. Corp. 148; Thomas v. Railroad Co., ... 101 U.S. 71, 25 L.Ed. 950; Ryne v. Mfg ... 467; State v ... Virginia-Carolina C. Co., 71 S.C. 544, 51 S.E. 455 ... Ohio, 173 U.S. 285, 43 L.Ed ... 702; A. Coast Line R. R. Co. v. N. C., 206 U.S. 1, ... 51 ... 35, 23 N.E. 60; State ... ex rel v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 53 Fla. 650, 44 ... So. 213, ... 362; Railroad ... Commission Cases, 116 U.S. 307; C. M. & S. v. P. R. R. v ... ...
  • State v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • 24 Noviembre 1908
    ... ... Action ... by the Railroad Commissioners, in the name of the State, ... inst the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. Judgment ... for defendant, and plaintiff ... , but expressly authorize the Railroad Commission to ... make reasonable and just rules and ... legal title to which is in the corporation ... Transportation ... for others as ... 627] 513, 38 L.Ed. 415; South ... Carolina v. Georgia, 93 U.S. 4, text 13, 23 L.Ed. 782 ... 174; Atlantic Coast Line R ... Co. v. North Carolina Corporation Commission, 206 U.S ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT