Burke County, Georgia v. United States

Decision Date29 June 1962
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1031.
Citation206 F. Supp. 586
PartiesBURKE COUNTY, GEORGIA; City of Waynesboro, Georgia; Screven County, Georgia; and City of Sylvania, Georgia, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant, and Interstate Commerce Commission, Savannah & Atlanta Railway Company, and Central of Georgia Railway Company, Intervening Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

Henry T. Chance, Roy V. Harris, of Harris, Chance, McCracken & Harrison, Augusta, Ga., W. Colbert Hawkins, Sylvania, Ga., H. Cliff Hatcher, Waynesboro, Ga., R. U. Harden, Waynesboro, Ga., for plaintiffs.

Lee Loevinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Donald H. Frazier, U. S. Atty., S. D. of Georgia, Savannah, Ga., William T. Morton, Asst. U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., for defendant United States.

James Y. Piper, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., for intervening defendant, Interstate Commerce Commission.

R. M. Hitch, Savannah, Ga., for Intervening defendant Savannah & Atlanta R. Co.

John B. Miller, Savannah, Ga., for intervening defendant Central of Georgia R. Co.

Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Savannah, Ga., of counsel for intervening defendants.

Before JONES, Circuit Judge, and SCARLETT and SIMPSON, District Judges.

SIMPSON, District Judge.

This suit is brought pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C.A. § 17(9), and Title 28 U.S.C. § 2321 et seq. to set aside that portion of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission which permitted the Savannah & Atlanta Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as the S. & A.) to abandon its line of railroad between Sylvania, Georgia and Waynesboro, Georgia.

On September 2, 1959, the S. & A. filed an application with the I.C.C. seeking permission under Section 1(18) of Title 49 U.S.C.A. to abandon its line of railroad between Sylvania and Waynesboro. In that same application, Finance Docket 20810, the Central of Georgia Railway Company sought permission to abandon its line of railroad between Central Junction, Georgia, and Oliver, Georgia. The two railroads proposed to build a line of track connecting the S. & A.'s track line near Ardmore, Georgia, and the Central of Georgia's track line near Oliver and to acquire trackage rights over the other's line. Each railroad could then run trains from Savannah to Waynesboro over the S. & A.'s tracks from Savannah to the connecting track, over the connecting track to the Central of Georgia's line and over Central of Georgia's track line to Waynesboro. At the time of this application the two railroads each operated a complete track line connecting Savannah and Waynesboro. The railroads contended that the traffic on each line was insufficient to justify the maintenance of both, the cost of maintenance and operation of the separate lines adversely affecting the financial position of both railroads.

A hearing was held before hearing examiner, John L. Bradford, on the joint application. At this hearing, many parties, including plaintiffs in this action, appeared protesting S. & A.'s application to abandon its line of track, contending that the expanding traffic along that line of track justified its continued operation. Several protestants, including plaintiffs, also contended that the railroads should not be allowed to abandon the S. & A. line of track because the railroads had promised ten years earlier, when control of S. & A. was acquired by the Central of Georgia Railroad, that the S. & A. track line would not be abandoned. Several of the protestants averred that they would have strenuously opposed the application of the Central of Georgia to acquire control of the S. & A. but for those promises of the railroads. The hearing examiner noted this contention in his report in discussing the opposition of the Georgia Public Service Commission to S. & A.'s proposed abandonment, but made no specific findings on that issue.

In that report, the examiner recommended that the public convenience and necessity warranted granting the Central of Georgia's application for permission to abandon its track line between Central Junction and Oliver but recommended that the S. & A.'s application to abandon its track line between Sylvania and Waynesboro be denied. This latter recommendation was based on his conclusion that potential for future traffic along the S. & A.'s track line was bright and would support its operation. The railroads excepted to this part of the examiner's report. Upon review, the Commission, Division 4, found that public convenience and necessity permitted abandonment of the S. & A.'s track line between Sylvania and Waynesboro and granted the application to permit abandonment of that line of track. In all other respects, the examiner's report was adopted.

In its report, Finance Docket 20810, Division 4 of the Commission also alluded to the arguments of certain protestants that they had relied on promises of Central of Georgia Railway officials that the S. & A. line of track would not be abandoned when Central of Georgia acquired control of the S. & A. ten years earlier. These arguments did not "overly impress" the Commission. (p. 7, Commission Report).

Protestants, including plaintiffs, petitioned the full commission for reconsideration and rehearing. Those petitions denied, plaintiffs then brought this suit.

Plaintiffs are the counties through which that portion of the S. & A.'s track line to be abandoned runs and the cities on each end of that line. They are naturally concerned with the effect on their economic development of this abandonment, which will leave several smaller towns...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State of North Carolina v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • October 19, 1962
    ...819, 78 L.Ed. 1402 (1934); Moeller v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 201 F.Supp. 583 (S.D.Iowa, 1962); Burke County, Georgia v. United States, 206 F.Supp. 586 (S.D.Georgia, 1962). Plaintiffs also seek to invoke the doctrine of res judicata to bar the ICC from considering the question of pu......
  • City of Cherokee v. I. C. C.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 9, 1981
    ... ... INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and United States of America, ... Respondents, ... Illinois Central ... Abandonment, 275 I.C.C. 1 (1949), and also Burke County, Ga. v. United States, 206 F.Supp. 586 ... ...
  • Roberts v. Wood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama
    • July 27, 1962
    ... ... WOOD, M.D., Defendant ... Civ. A. No. 2449 ... United States District Court S. D. Alabama, S. D ... July 27, ... ...
  • State of Nebraska v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • June 17, 1966
    ... ... Burke County, Georgia v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 586 (D.C.Ga.1962) ...         After a ... ...

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