Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co. v. Chicago Heights Terminal Transfer R. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 16356.,16356.
• Citation: 147 N.E. 666,317 Ill. 65
• Parties: CHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO. v. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

317 Ill. 65

147 N.E. 666

CHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO.

v.CHICAGO HEIGHTS TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO.

No. 16356.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 24, 1925.

Bill by the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company against the Chicago Heights Terminal Transfer Railroad Company. Decree dismissing bill was affirmed by the appellate court, and the case comes to Supreme Court on certificate of importance.

Affirmed.Appeal from Second Branch Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Superior Court, Cook County; Denis E. Sullivan, Judge.

Homer T. Dick and Gallagher, Kohlsaat, Rinaker & Wilkinson, all of Chicago, for appellant.

Butler, Lamb, Foster & Pope, Ryan, Condon & Livingston, and Walter, Burchmore, Collin & Belknap, all of Chicago (William E. Lamb, James G. Condon, Luther M. Walter, Allan J. Carter, and David J. Greenberg, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

STONE, J.

Appellant, the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company (hereinafter referred to as the railway company) filed its bill against the Chicago Heights Terminal Transfer Railroad Company (hereinafter referred to as the terminal company) seeking an injunction against the violation of a certain contract entered into between them and asking for specific performance of the same. Upon a hearing the superior court of Cook county dismissed the bill for want of equity. Its decree was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and the cause comes here on a certificate of importance issued by that court.

The facts are not in dispute. As to most of them a stipulation has been filed. The railway company was organized in 1920 under the laws of the state of Illinois and succeeded to the rights, franchise, and property of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company. The terminal company is also a railroad corporation organized under the laws of this state in 1898, and is and has been operating and managing a railroad at Chicago Heights, consisting of 22 miles of track. Its business is to transport inbound and outbound freight to and from points on its line in and near the city of Chicago Heights to and from the tracks of four trunk line carriers, including appellant, at that place. Shipments originating on these trunk lines destined to points on the terminal company tracks are placed by the trunk line on a convenient track, and the terminal company by its own engines and crews places the same at the particular point of destination on its tracks. Outbound shipments are received from the shipper by the terminal company, as are requests from the industries for car placements. The terminal company bills the shipments out over the trunk line railway designated, and transports such shipments over its rails to a track used as an exchange track and there delivers them to the trunk line. Daily reportsare made of this business. Outbound cars from Chicago Heights are sealed by the terminal company, regardless of the road to which they are to be delivered. Inbound and outbound cars received by the terminal company are first taken to its classification yards some distance from the trunk line tracks. These yards are about a mile and a half from the railway company's tracks. When placed in the classification yards the cars are classified as to the trunk line to which they are to be delivered if outbound, and as to the industry if inbound.

The evidence shows that the service of this character rendered by the terminal company to the railway company, and the manner of handling the cars connected therewith, are identical with the service rendered and methods used as to the other trunk lines. This service is the same whether the shipment be interstate or intrastate. The record shows that the railway company and the other trunk line railroads are all interstate carriers, and that shipments originating on the terminal company are both interstate and intrastate. Prior to April, 1900, the railway company's predecessor and two other railroad companies used the tracks of the terminal company to move freight to and from points on the latter's line to their own tracks. In so doing they used their own engines and crews, and confusion arose over the use of the tracks, and on April 16, 1900, the terminal company took over all control and operation of the tracks, and established the character of service hereinabove referred to. This continued until May 14, 1907, when the agreement which is made the basis of this bill was entered into by appellant's predecessor and the terminal company. It may be styled an operating contract. Another agreement or auxiliary contract was at that time executed between the parties for the purpose of arranging a method of payment of back claims of the terminal company against the predecessor of appellant. By this auxiliary contract a grant of a $5.50 Chicago rate was given to the terminal company. As this auxiliary contract is conceded to be illegal, it will not be necessary to refer it further in this opinion.

The main contract in question provides that it is to run for a period of 99 years. By it the terminal company is to transport all cars between the tracks of the railroad company and the industries on the terminal company's lines, for which service it is to receive a compensation of $1 per car, and in addition thereto the proportion of the cost of operation and maintenance of the terminal company's road which the number of loaded cars transferred by the terminal company for the railroad company bears to the entire number of loaded cars handled by the terminal company. This service includes interchange of empty cars, with, however, an additional compensation to the terminal company of 25 cents for each empty car moved for the railroad company. Within the scope of the cost of operation are to be considered loss or damages paid for personal injuries, injury to property or cars while on industrial tracks, taxes, government charges, etc. The contract provides that in case of disagreement between the parties the subject-matter thereof shall be submitted to arbitrators. It also provides that if the services of any official or employee below the rank of general superintendent is unsatisfactory to the railroad company it shall have the right to require the discharge of such employee or officer.

Appellant, when organized took over the contract. Operations under this contract were carried on until July 22, 1922, when the terminal company filed its tariff of rates with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Illinois Commerce Commission, which it here claims it was required to do under the Interstate Commerce Act (U. S. Comp. St. § 8563 et seq.) and the Illinois Public Utilities Act (Laws 1913, p. 455). These tariffs were higher than the compensation paid under the railway company's contract and similar contracts which the terminal company had with other trunk lines. The terminal company took the position that the compensation under the contract was entirelyinadequate, and declared that the rates in the tariffs filed with the Interstate and Illinois Commerce Commissions must be paid. The record shows that the railway company sought to suspend the tariff by action before the Interstate Commerce Commission and the illinois Commerce Commission, and, failing to secure favorable action by these bodies, it filed this bill for specific performance on the ground that the service rendered under the contract between it and the terminal company was that of an agent and not carrier service, and was therefore not subject to the tariff filed or the regulations prescribed by the...