American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. South Porto Rico Sugar Co., 1631.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | 1631. |
| Citation | 293 F. 670 |
| Parties | AMERICAN R. CO. OF PORTO RICO v. SOUTH PORTO RICO SUGAR CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Francis H. Dexter, of San Juan, Porto Rico, for appellant.
Francis E. Neagle, of New York City (Rounds, Hatch, Dillingham & Debevoise, of New York City, and O. B. Frazer and Nelson Gammans, both of San Juan, Porto Rico, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory decree of the United States District Court for Porto Rico granting a temporary injunction--
'in accordance with the prayer of the bill of complaint, but to continue in force only until such time as the Public Service Commission of Porto Rico shall include in its rates of tariffs a charge for the service now being rendered by the railroad company to the sugar company, there being no rate for such service at present.'
The prayer of the bill was that:
'The defendant, its agents and employees, and all persons acting by, through or under its authority, be enjoined pendente lite from cutting from defendant's main lines the switches and sidings referred to herein, and from refusing to deliver cars to or receive cars from said switches and sidings, and from otherwise interfering with complainant or violating its contracts with complainant as a means of coercing complainant to pay said alleged greasing charges.'
The complainant in the court below, in support of its application for a temporary injunction, filed the affidavit of its vice president and general manager in verification of the facts set forth in the bill of complaint, and the defendant, in resisting the application filed the affidavit of its manager to the truth of the facts set forth in a paper styled an answer which it filed to the bill of complaint. From these papers it appears that the complainant is a Porto Rican corporation engaged in operating a sugar mill in Porto Rico; that the defendant (the appellant) is a New York corporation engaged in operating a public service railroad in Porto Rico; that the complainant, in connection with the operation of its sugar mill, purchases sugar cane from independent growers called colonos, whose lands are situated in different localities and at considerable distances from said mill; that, in order to transport the sugar cane purchased from these independent growers, it had caused to be constructed and owned some 60 switches adjacent the defendant's line in the vicinity of the independent growers, said switches and sidings being located on land owned or leased by it. It is admitted that the complainant paid the defendant for constructing the switches and sidings and owned them, but it is denied that in consideration of said payments the defendant agreed to--
'deliver cane cars on the switches and sidings and receive the same therefrom for transportation over its track during the life of said switches and sidings, subject only to regulations provided by law.'
It is alleged and admitted that the defendant has threatened and threatens to cut off said switches and sidings and to refuse to deliver cars thereto and receive cars therefrom unless the complainant pays to it greasing charges in the amount of $1,704 for the calendar year 1922 and $852 every six months thereafter in advance (which at the present time amount to over $3,000), and that it has demanded and threatens to demand such charges.
It is further alleged that the greasing charges are not included in any tariff of rates filed by the defendant with the Public Service Commission of Porto Rico and are illegal and void. It is admitted by the defendant that said charges have not been included in any tariff of rates filed by it, and, while it does not specifically deny that such charges are illegal and void, it does so inferentially, for it says that they have been sanctioned and recognized by the Public Service Commission and its predecessor for more than 15 years and--
'are incidental charges made necessary for the granting of special facilities to plaintiff and all other owners of private switches and sidings.'
It is alleged that the amount or matter in controversy in this suit exceeds the sum of $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs that said switches and sidings are necessary for the economical removal of cane from land of the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the value of said contracts with defendant is many times $3,000; that the cutting off of said switches and sidings from defendant's main lines, and the refusal to deliver cars thereto and receive loaded cars therefrom for transportation to complainant's sugar mill, will result in irreparable injury to complainant; that the cost of transportation by cart or otherwise to defendant's nearest public stations would be prohibitive, and make it impossible for complainant to compete with other mill owners, and that the value of said connecting switches is greatly in excess of the cost of construction or replacement; that said injury cannot be compensated for by money damages, and complainant has no adequate remedy at law. The defendant denies that the amount or matter in controversy exceeds $3,000. It admits that the switches and sidings are necessary for the economical removal of cane from land of the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but denies the existence of any contract between the plaintiff and defendant and that such contract has value in excess of $3,000, and says that the service of delivering and receiving cane cars at said switches and sidings is given in response to its general duty as a common carrier, and not by virtue of any contract with the plaintiff or its predecessors in interest. The defendant denies that its act in refusing to deliver and receive cars at the private switches and sidings will result in irreparable injury to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated for in money damages, or that the plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, and says that it appears from the allegations of the bill of complaint that the charge objected to by plaintiff represents service rendered by defendant to it during the past year, and that the plaintiff has ignored the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission which it may lawfully exercise in connection with the charge complained of. The defendant also avers that it has for many years received from all other owners of private switches and sidings said greasing charges without complaint from them or the Public Service Commission and its predecessor; that it has failed to charge and collect from the plaintiff and its predecessors in interest such greasing charges, either as a favor extended to them or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NATIONAL ASS'N FOR ADVANCE. OF COLORED PEOPLE v. Patty
...121, 125, 126, 36 S.Ct. 30, 60 L.Ed. 174; Gibbs v. Buck, 307 U.S. 66, 74, 59 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed. 1111; American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. South Porto Rico Sugar Co., 1 Cir., 293 F. 670, 673; cf. McNutt v. General Motors Accept. Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 181, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; KVOS, Inc.......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Railway Express Agency
...211 F.2d 443, 445, 47 A.L.R.2d 646; Wyoming Ry. Co. v. Herrington, 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 1004, 1006; American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. South Porto Rico Sugar Co., 1 Cir., 293 F. 670, 673-674; Sullivan v. Farmers Bank & Trust Co., D.C.E.D. Ky., 145 F.Supp. 702, 705. Such a rule does not contraven......
-
Attleboro Steam & Electric Co. v. Narragansett Electric Lighting Co.
... ... American ... Railroad Co. of Porto Rico v. South Porto co Sugar Co ... (C.C.A.) 1st Circuit, November 24, ... ...
-
Service Finance Corporation v. Coppard
...Building & Loan Ass'n v. Edgefield Hotel Co., C.C., 109 F. 692; Waterfield v. Rice, 6 Cir., 111 F. 625; American R. Co. of Porto Rico v. South Porto Rico Sugar Co., 1 Cir., 293 F. 670. 3 52 Stat., p. 854, Sec. 23, 11 U.S.C.A. § 46; Schumacher v. Beeler, 293 U.S. 367, 55 S.Ct. 230, 79 L.Ed. ...