Baker-Whiteley Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1910
• Citation: Baker-Whiteley Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 176 F. 632 (4th Cir. 1910)
• Parties: BAKER WHITELEY COAL CO. v. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

176 F. 632

BAKER WHITELEY COAL CO. v. BALTIMORE & O.R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Maryland.

February 9, 1910

Robert H. Smith, John C. Rose, and J. Craig McLanahan, for complainant.

Herbert R. Preston and R. Marsden Smith, for defendant.

Before GOFF, Circuit Judge, and MORRIS, District Judge.

MORRIS District Judge.

This is a bill in equity filed by the Baker Whiteley Coal Company, a corporation of West Virginia, against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, a corporation of Maryland, praying an injunction restraining the railroad company from putting into effect a rule made by it by which after June 15, 1908, the docking and undocking of all classes of vessels at the railroad company's coal pier at Curtis Bay should be done exclusively by the tugs of Capt. R.M. Spedden. On the case made by the bill and affidavits, a preliminary restraining order was granted, and now, after answer filed and testimony duly taken, the case comes on for final hearing.

The Curtis Bay coal pier of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company was, about 1901, built out from land of which the railroad company is the riparian owner on the navigable waters of the Patapsco river adjacent to the harbor of Baltimore. The object of its construction by the railroad company was to facilitate in the most convenient manner the loading of coal-carrying ships with the coal brought to the pier by the railroad company. There is room for from two to four ships on each side of the pier, but it is not used for any other purpose. The complainant is the owner of tugs, having a large business in towing vessels and in docking them at the coal pier. The business of the complainant is injuriously affected by the enforcement of the order complained of for the reason that the complainant makes annual contracts with vessels coming up the Chesapeake Bay and using the coal pier by which it contracts for an agreed price to meet the vessels and do all their towing, including the service of docking and undocking at the coal pier. This towing business of the complainant is large, and the part of its charges for the work of docking and undocking steamers at the coal pier amounts to as much as $7,000 a year.

The immediate occasion of the filing of the bill as stated in the complaint was that the Norwegian steamship Horda, in respect to which the complainant had a towing contract, had arrived in the harbor of Baltimore intending to load with coal at the coal pier, and had been towed alongside the pier by one of complainant's tugs for the purpose of being docked at the coal pier, but those in charge of the pier had refused to let the steamship come to the pier in tow of complainant's tug, and had denied to the complainant the opportunity of completing the towage service it had contracted to perform and refused to allow the steamship to be docked except by Spedden's tug.

The answer of the railroad company alleges that the coal pier at Curtis Bay, with its large number of shifting tracks and its branch road connecting it with the railroad company's main line, was constructed for the purpose of receiving assorting, and classifying coal cars with the least delay possible; that its operation is complex as compared with an ordinary pier, and requires for successful operation that, in assorting and arranging coal cars and sending them to the pier and in unloading the coal into vessels, every kind of delay and confusion should be avoided; that it is true that in the past vessels have employed any tugs they might choose to dock and undock them at the pier, but it was found that this practice caused delay and confusion and materially limited the capacity of the pier resulting in delay to the shippers of coal; that as a means of remedying these evils the railroad company determined to so arrange that there should always be tugs in readiness at or about the pier for the special purpose of promptly docking and undocking vessels as soon as they were ready; that for this reason they had contracted with R. M. Spedden to keep during 12 hours of the day a tug of sufficient capacity at the coal pier, and to charge vessels for the service not exceeding the rate established by the ...