North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Citation: 51 S.E. 793,139 N.C. 126
• Parties: NORTH CAROLINA CORP. COMMISSION v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Decision Date: 26 September 1905
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

51 S.E. 793

139 N.C. 126

NORTH CAROLINA CORP. COMMISSION v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 26, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Wilson County; Justice, Judge.

Petition by the state, on the relation of the North Carolina Corporation Commission, against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, petitioner appeals. Reversed.

Under Laws 1899, p. 291, c. 164, creating the Corporation Commission, giving it general control and supervision of all railroads, providing in section 17 (page 303) that all railroad companies shall issue duplicate freight receipts, in which shall be stated the class or classes of freight shipped and the freight charges, and declaring by section 2, subsec. 12 (page 293), that the commission may require depot accommodations commensurate with the business and revenue the commission has authority to require the railroad company to install track scales at points where the business justifies it.

The Attorney General and F. A. Woodard, for appellant. Junius Davis and Pou & Fuller, for appellee.

CLARK C.J.

A petition was filed before the Corporation Commission by the Dennis Simmons Lumber Company, whose plant is located at Elm City, asking that the defendant be required to put in track scales for weighing lumber shipped in car load lots from that point. It was in evidence that the defendant had such scales at 21 other points on its North Carolina and Virginia division, at which there were sawmills among them Weldon, Tillery, Parmelee, Washington, and Rocky Mount; that on the lumber shipped by the plaintiff at Elm City it paid $30,385 freight in 1903, being more freight than was paid on car load shipments at several points where the defendant had put in such scales; that the scales, if put in would cost the defendant about $1,000; that the defendant offered to put in such scales if the plaintiff would add one-fourth of a cent per 100 pounds to its present rate of eight cents, which would cost the plaintiff very nearly $950 additional per annum; that there was very little car load freight requiring the use of such scales shipped from Elm City, except that shipped by the petitioner; and that the plaintiff had now to ship its lumber unweighed, and would pay freight upon its estimated weight, which would be corrected when the lumber was later weighed at Rocky Mount or Pinner's Point, at which places en route the defendant had track scales. The plaintiff objected to this latter arrangement, because it gave it no opportunity to see to the correctness of the weighing, and gave in evidence of serious inaccuracies in the weights as thus made elsewhere and reported to them. Upon the above evidence the Corporation Commission found the facts in accordance therewith, and ordered that "the defendant furnish track scales at Elm City for the purpose of weighing all car load shipments from that point."

Upon appeal by the defendant to the superior court, the evidence was substantially the same, except the additional fact that the petitioner expected to get through cutting timber at Elm City in two years, when its plant would be removed to Kenly another point on the defendant's road, where it would have ten years' cutting, and the scales could be removed to that point for the same use. The plaintiff tendered the following issues: "(1) Is it reasonable that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company be required for the convenience of shippers of freight to put in track scales at Elm City? (2) Are tract scales a necessary convenience for the use of shippers of freight at Elm City?" At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant offered no evidence, but demurred to the plaintiff's evidence. The plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury to answer both issues "Yes." To the refusal of the court to submit the issues tendered, and also to the refusal to instruct the jury as prayed, the plaintiff excepted. The court held with the defendant, on the ground, as stated in the judgment, that the Corporation Commission "had no power under the law to make the order appealed from, sustained the demurrer on that ground, and reversed the judgment" of the Corporation Commission.

There was error in the judgment that the Corporation Commission "had no power under the law to make the order appealed from." The power of the Legislature to supervise regulate, and control the rates and conduct of common carriers has come down to us from the remotest times of the common law, and that this regulation may be exercised, either directly or through a commission, has been repeatedly held by this court and by the Supreme Court of the United States. Railroad Connection Case, 137 N.C. 15, 49 S.E. 191, and cases there cited. The contest here is simply and substantially a reiteration of the issue in that case, which is whether the state, through its Corporation Commission, has power to exercise a "general control and supervision of railroads" within this state in their dealings with the public. Section 1 of the act creating the commission (Laws 1899, p. 291, c. 164) provides that it "shall have such general control and supervision of all railroad *** companies or corporations engaged in the carrying of freight or passengers *** necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act." Section 2 (page 292) empowers and directs the commission "to make just and reasonable rules and regulations for the handling of freight and baggage at stations." Section 17 (page 303) provides that "all railroad companies in this state shall on demand issue duplicate freight receipts to shippers, in which shall be stated the class or classes of freight shipped and the freight charges over the road giving the receipt." A literal compliance with the last clause would require, on demand of the shipper, that the articles shipped be weighed in every instance, that the shipper may see for himself what he must pay. But, inasmuch as at many stations the quantity of freight shipped in car load lots would make it an unnecessary burden to require at such points means of weighing car loads to ascertain the freight to be charged, the Corporation Commission, under the further clause (section 2, subsec. 12, p. 293), to "require depot accommodations commensurate with the business and revenue," has not required track scales at all points, but has made reasonable rules for regulating, by a standing estimate, the weight in car load lots of different articles shipped from such stations. But this is not in derogation of the right and duty of the commission to require track scales or other proper facilities for weighing car load freight to be put in at such points as the quantity of business may justify it. The...