Gulf, M. & NR Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., No. 88.

CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
Citation21 F. Supp. 282
Docket NumberNo. 88.
PartiesGULF, M. & N. R. CO. v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
Decision Date10 November 1937

21 F. Supp. 282

GULF, M. & N. R. CO.
v.
ILLINOIS CENT.
R. CO.

No. 88.

District Court, W. D. Tennessee, E. D.

November 10, 1937.


21 F. Supp. 283

J. N. Flowers, of Jackson, Miss., Walter P. Armstrong and Benj. Goodman, Jr., both of Memphis, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Chas. N. Burch and H. D. Minor, both of Memphis, Tenn., and Chas. A. Helsell, of Chicago, Ill. (E. C. Craig, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.

21 F. Supp. 284

MARTIN, District Judge.

The motion of the plaintiff railroad company for a preliminary injunction seeks to restrain the defendant railroad company from an alleged violation of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission (Finance Docket No. 9916, 193 I.C.C. 106), and to restrain the defendant from interference with the operation by plaintiff of its through freight trains, drawn by its own locomotives and in charge of its own crews between Bemis, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., over the tracks of the defendant, pursuant to the provisions of a trackage contract between the parties of date June 7, 1933.

A decree for specific performance of this trackage contract is prayed by the plaintiff, especially as pertains to the provision therein for the continued operation by the plaintiff of its through freight trains, drawn by its own locomotives and in charge of crews selected by plaintiff from its own employees.

A certificate of public convenience and necessity, effective June 7, 1933, was issued by the Interstate Commerce Commission, authorizing the operation by plaintiff under trackage rights over the railroad of defendant in listed counties and places in Tennessee and Kentucky, and permitting the abandonment by the plaintiff of operation under trackage rights over the railroad of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway, in the same territory.

In its answer, the defendant admits full performance by the plaintiff of its contract of June 7, 1933; and that, notwithstanding such compliance, it notified the plaintiff that on April 30, 1936, it would require the plaintiff to use employees of defendant in making up the crews for the operation of plaintiff's trains over defendant's tracks between Bemis and Paducah, and that it would deny plaintiff the use of defendant's lines unless the trains of plaintiff run over the designated route were manned by employees of the defendant railroad company.

The reasons given by the defendant for its action are that nearly all of its employees who operate freight trains are members of the affiliated Big Four Railroad Brotherhoods, namely the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the Order of Railway Conductors, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, which have definitely decided through their respective officials, acting concertedly, that Illinois Central employees should be permitted to man all trains on the Illinois Central Railroad tracks between Jackson, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., including the freight trains of plaintiff; that, unless the defendant yields to the demand of the Big Four Railroad Brotherhoods, the engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen, and flagmen on its whole system of nearly 7,000 miles of railroad will refuse to work further for defendant; that it will be unable to supply their places, and that its operations "would thereby be brought to a standstill not only to the irreparable injury of defendant, but to the irreparable injury of the public, and also of the plaintiff."

To this averment, the defendant adds: "On the other hand, if defendant's employees are placed on said trains of plaintiff, transportation and traffic will be conducted as heretofore, as the train operatives of plaintiff are members of said four organizations and are bound by the decision of their Grand Lodges and Grand Officers, and will obey said decision."

Supporting affidavits of various officials of the railroad brotherhoods substantiate the precarious position of the defendant railroad company, should it fail to accede to their demands. These affidavits show that, should the Illinois Central Railroad Company permit the employees of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Company to operate trains over the former's tracks, a strike vote will be taken among the membership of the railroad brotherhoods; with the opinion expressed by affiants that the vote of the employees would result in favor of a strike.

These affidavits show, further, that the manning of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Company freight trains by Illinois Central Railroad Company regular employees is a very vital matter to the four railroad brotherhoods, involving seniority rights of Illinois Central employees for which the brotherhoods had contended long prior to the contract of June 7, 1933; and that "by long understanding, the said Illinois Central employees were entitled to man all trains operating over Illinois Central tracks," which right the Illinois Central Railroad Company refused to recognize, with the result that the chief executives of the brotherhoods, after investigation, decided jointly that Illinois Central employees should be permitted to

21 F. Supp. 285
man all trains on the Illinois Central tracks between Jackson, Tenn., and Paducah, Ky., "regardless of where they come from or which railroad's equipment is used."

The position of the Big Four Railroad Brotherhoods is well stated in the affidavit of T. S. Jackson, chairman of the general grievance committee of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen on the Illinois Central Railroad System. After stating the facts upon which this controversy arises, the affiant says:

"Reference of the controversy to said employe members for their consideration and action means taking of a referendum vote to determine whether or not said General Committee and executive officers of the organizations should be authorized to direct a peaceful withdrawal of such employe members from the service of said Illinois Central System in the event a satisfactory settlement could not be effected; that affiant is reasonably certain that such a referendum vote would be in favor of such a withdrawal from the service, that is a strike, unless a satisfactory settlement could be effected; that a strike would mean that all engineers, firemen, conductors, brakemen, flagmen and switchmen on said Illinois Central System would cease and discontinue to work until the request of said brotherhoods was complied with; that such a referendum or strike vote would be binding also on the Gulf, Mobile & Northern employes who manned Gulf, Mobile & Northern trains between Bemis and Paducah, and that said Gulf, Mobile & Northern employes, in the event of a strike, would likewise cease and discontinue to work and that no trains, either Illinois Central or Gulf, Mobile & Northern, would be moved between Bemis, Tennessee, and Paducah, Kentucky, and that no trains would move anywhere on the Illinois Central System; that in the event of a strike no competent men could be found who would be willing to undertake the work of moving said trains; that the business of transportation and traffic on the Illinois Central System, in the event of a strike, would be brought to a standstill; that the convening of the General Committees and the further steps just indicated were delayed when it was ascertained by said four organizations that the President of the Illinois Central System had given notice to the President of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad that after April 30, 1936, Gulf, Mobile & Northern trains would not be allowed to move from Bemis to Paducah and in the reverse direction unless manned by Illinois Central employees; that in the event of calling a strike said four organizations would not permit any injury to persons or damage to property, but that said strike would be carried on in a lawful way and in accordance with the laws of the United States and the several states; that said organizations sincerely believe that their complaint is just and in accordance with the terms of their schedules or wage and working agreements with the Illinois Central System of many years' standing, and that their request for manning Gulf, Mobile & Northern trains with Illinois Central employes between Bemis and Paducah should be complied with; that they are advised that they have a lawful right to strike and to cease and discontinue work and that they are protected in this step by the statutes of the United States and that a strike is a lawful weapon.

"Affiant avers that in view of the pending suit which has been brought by the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Company against the Illinois Central Railroad Company in this court, the said four brotherhoods have deferred taking any further action pending the determination of this cause; that said four organizations are fighting for a principle and their contractual rights, that is, where one railroad company grants trackage rights to another railroad company, then the employes of the granting company are entitled to all work in the movement of trains over the rails of the granting company; that the establishment of such principle is of the highest importance and vital to the protection of men morking for railroad companies; that otherwise practically all of the work of transportation on the line of any railroad may be taken away from the regular employes of said railroad regardless of their prior contractual rights and given to the employes of another railroad or railroads which obtain trackage rights; that the employes of the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad, as well as the employes of the Illinois Central Railroad, will obey and abide by the decision of said four brotherhoods and that said four brotherhoods are not to be understood as making threats in order, even if they could, to coerce judgment of this honorable court.

"This affidavit is made for use in connection with the suit filed by the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Company vs Illinois Central Railroad Company, being case No. 88 in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Mayflower Hotel Stock. P. Com. v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., No. 10745.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 25, 1951
    ...1385; Bowen v. Hockley, 4 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 781, 786, 94 A.L.R. 856; Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn.1937, 21 F.Supp. 282, 295, appeal dismissed by stipulation of the parties, 6 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 1016. Furthermore, even a court bound by the strict rules of t......
  • SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM. v. GLASS MARINE INDUS., Civ. A. No. 2276.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • October 24, 1961
    ...p. 15. 7 Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426, 68 S.Ct. 641, 92 L.Ed. 784; Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., D.C.Tenn., 21 F.Supp. 282; Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 290 U.S. 264, 54 S.Ct. 154, 78 L.Ed. 307; Skinner v. Redding, 29 Del. Ch. 276, 48 A......
  • United States v. Oley, No. 36966.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 1, 1937
    ...by the Assistant United States Attorney stating that this case was presented to the grand jury on February 11 and February 16, 1937, 21 F. Supp. 282 and at that time the official stenographer of the grand jury was not present and there was no other stenographer present, and that accordingly......
  • GULF, MOBILE AND NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, No. 8164.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 6, 1940
    ...the issues 109 F.2d 1017 involved and that counsel are agreed that the appeal may be dismissed, it is now ordered that said appeal, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 282, be and it is hereby dismissed, the appellant to pay all the costs of this court, and all the costs of the District...
4 cases
  • Mayflower Hotel Stock. P. Com. v. Mayflower Hotel Corp., No. 10745.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 25, 1951
    ...1385; Bowen v. Hockley, 4 Cir., 1934, 71 F.2d 781, 786, 94 A.L.R. 856; Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn.1937, 21 F.Supp. 282, 295, appeal dismissed by stipulation of the parties, 6 Cir., 1940, 109 F.2d 1016. Furthermore, even a court bound by the strict rules of t......
  • SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMM. v. GLASS MARINE INDUS., Civ. A. No. 2276.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • October 24, 1961
    ...p. 15. 7 Eccles v. Peoples Bank, 333 U.S. 426, 68 S.Ct. 641, 92 L.Ed. 784; Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., D.C.Tenn., 21 F.Supp. 282; Central Kentucky Natural Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 290 U.S. 264, 54 S.Ct. 154, 78 L.Ed. 307; Skinner v. Redding, 29 Del. Ch. 276, 48 A......
  • United States v. Oley, No. 36966.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • December 1, 1937
    ...by the Assistant United States Attorney stating that this case was presented to the grand jury on February 11 and February 16, 1937, 21 F. Supp. 282 and at that time the official stenographer of the grand jury was not present and there was no other stenographer present, and that accordingly......
  • GULF, MOBILE AND NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, No. 8164.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • February 6, 1940
    ...the issues 109 F.2d 1017 involved and that counsel are agreed that the appeal may be dismissed, it is now ordered that said appeal, D.C., 21 F.Supp. 282, be and it is hereby dismissed, the appellant to pay all the costs of this court, and all the costs of the District...

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