Belt Line Ry. Corporation v. Newton

Decision Date25 January 1921
Citation273 F. 272
PartiesBELT LINE RY. CORPORATION v. NEWTON, Atty. Gen., et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Alfred T. Davidson, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Winthrop & Stimson, of New York City, amici curiae.

Wilber W. Chambers, Ely Neumann, M. Maldwin Fertig, and Charles Horowitz, all of New York City, for defendants.

Before HOUGH, Circuit Judge, and LEARNED HAND and MAYER, District Judges, holding the court pursuant to section 256 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. Sec. 1233).

PER CURIAM.

This motion in substance seeks to have abrogated as confiscatory and therefore unconstitutional, the system by which the Fifty-Ninth Street crosstown surface line is obliged to issue to and receive transfers from passengers desiring to exchange at the intersection of Fifty-Ninth street with Seventh Sixth, Lexington, Second, and First avenues, in the borough of Manhattan, the result of which system is that for each passenger so exchanging and from a through rate of five cents the plaintiff receives two cents and no more. As the result of this long-standing system, the major portion of the passengers on plaintiff's crosstown line pay a fare of two cents only to plaintiff-- the proportion of two-cent passengers to five-cent passengers being (with sufficient accuracy for present purposes) in the proportion of 10 to 7.

The facts presented are simple and not in dispute. The propositions of law are easy to state, and their elaborate discussion unnecessary in a court of first instance. For these reasons we shall content ourselves with briefly stating our findings of fact and legal conclusions therefrom.

1. Plaintiff is a corporation organized in 1911, which by purchase in foreclosure acquired the franchises, property and rights formerly of the Central Park, North & East River Railroad Company, and by virtue of such acquisition became authorized to operate a surface railway on Fifty-Ninth street, between First and Tenth avenues, on First avenue between Fifty-Ninth street and Fourteenth street, and on Tenth avenue and West street, between Fifty-Ninth street and the Battery.

2. It is still operating what is known as the Crosstown Line on Fifty-Ninth street, and that on West street and Tenth avenue but the operation of the line on First avenue south of Fifty-Ninth street has been abandoned with assent of the Public Service Commission.

3. Plaintiff is subject to the operation of the Commission's order of October 29, 1912, under which no greater fare than five cents can be charged for the through transportation of one passenger, and of such fare of five cents the two cents long allotted by treaty or agreement to plaintiff is a fair and equitable provision. For the year ending June 30, 1920, the actual cost to plaintiff of carrying each passenger was 3.46 cents, of which sum .53 cents represents interest on first mortgage bonds and other borrowed money.

4. For the period of four months ending October 31, 1920, said actual cost was 3.96 cents, and the carrying charges for borrowed money amounted to .56 cents.

5. For the year ending June 30, 1920, a comparison between the actual cost of carrying passengers plus interest on borrowed money and the total income of the plaintiff from every source showed a deficit of $20,814.82, and by the same comparison a deficit exists of $28,120.27 for the four months ending October 31, 1920. These calculations allow for payment of taxes, but do not cover any reserve or any sum for replacement or depreciation of physical property. By the same system of computation the accumulated deficit, without depreciation allowances, of this plaintiff since January 1, 1916, amounts to $201,270.13.

6. In May, 1920, plaintiff applied to the Public Service Commission for a modification of the order of October 29, 1912, substantially praying to be relieved from the obligation to carry passengers for two cents-- in other words to abolish transfers at the points above mentioned.

7. Hearings were had before the Commission under the above application, and on July 9, 1920, the Commission entered an order holding that the joint rate of five cents fixed by the order of October 29, 1912, had by reason of changed conditions become ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Schlosser v. Welsh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • February 19, 1934
    ...of the state of Vermont." To the same effect see Chicago Ry. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission (D. C.) 277 F. 970; Belt Line Ry. Corp. v. Newton (D. C.) 273 F. 272; City R. Co. v. Beard (D. C.) 283 F. 313, In the last-cited case, decided by the District Court, it is said: "The justiciable......
  • Banton v. Belt Line Ry Corporation, 465
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1925
    ...which its railroad connected. A temporary injunction was granted by a court of three judges. Section 266, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1243); 273 F. 272. A master took the evidence and reported that the order was confiscatory. The district court confirmed his findings and entered decree as pr......
  • The Bluefields
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • May 27, 1921
    ... ... This ... seems to me to be conclusive against the first line of ... authorities. The question then arises: What is such a ... 'final ... ...

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