Chicago & E.I. Ry. Co. v. Chicago Heights Terminal Transfer R. Co., No. 16356.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtSTONE
Citation147 N.E. 666,317 Ill. 65
PartiesCHICAGO & E. I. RY. CO. v. CHICAGO HEIGHTS TERMINAL TRANSFER R. CO.
Docket NumberNo. 16356.
Decision Date24 April 1925

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.

[147 N.E. 667]


[317 Ill. 65]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.


[317 Ill. 66]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 reports[317 Ill. 67]are 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,

[147 N.E. 668]

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 [317 Ill. 68]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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Wintersteen v. Nat'l Cooperage & Woodenware Co., No. 22629.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 2 Octubre 1935
    ...car. Davis v. Henderson, supra; Davis v. Keystone Steel Co., supra; Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co. v. Trasfer Railroad Co., 317 Ill. 65, 147 N. E. 666. Neither could the railway company waive the liability, as between the plaintiff and the defendant, for any injury growing out o......
  • Cincinnati, NO & TP Ry. Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., No. 14997-14999.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 29 Abril 1971
    ...published tariffs to private contracts, it is contrary to an earlier case, Chicago & E. I. Ry. v. Chicago Heights Term. Trans. R. R., 317 Ill. 65, 147 N.E. 666, 669 (1925), and we are not disposed to follow V To give controlling effect to private agreements over published tariffs would ......
  • McGovern v. Brown, No. 15786.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 24 Abril 1925
    ...seen the circular previous to the auction sales in November, 1889, does not testify to its contents. The plat of block 6 of Hobart's [147 N.E. 666]subdivision does not show any building line on the lots in the south half thereof. [1][2][3] The first question presented for decision is whethe......
  • State v. Washington Tug & Barge Co., 20000.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Octubre 1926
    ...Constitution interpose any obstacle to the exertion of that power.' In Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Chicago Heights Terminal T. R. Co., 317 Ill. 65, 147 N.E. 666, it was said: 'In this case the terminal company is engaged in transportation and carriage of goods for hire. The mere fact that......
4 cases
  • Wintersteen v. Nat'l Cooperage & Woodenware Co., No. 22629.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 2 Octubre 1935
    ...car. Davis v. Henderson, supra; Davis v. Keystone Steel Co., supra; Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co. v. Trasfer Railroad Co., 317 Ill. 65, 147 N. E. 666. Neither could the railway company waive the liability, as between the plaintiff and the defendant, for any injury growing out o......
  • Cincinnati, NO & TP Ry. Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., No. 14997-14999.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 29 Abril 1971
    ...published tariffs to private contracts, it is contrary to an earlier case, Chicago & E. I. Ry. v. Chicago Heights Term. Trans. R. R., 317 Ill. 65, 147 N.E. 666, 669 (1925), and we are not disposed to follow V To give controlling effect to private agreements over published tariffs would ......
  • McGovern v. Brown, No. 15786.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 24 Abril 1925
    ...seen the circular previous to the auction sales in November, 1889, does not testify to its contents. The plat of block 6 of Hobart's [147 N.E. 666]subdivision does not show any building line on the lots in the south half thereof. [1][2][3] The first question presented for decision is whethe......
  • State v. Washington Tug & Barge Co., 20000.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 25 Octubre 1926
    ...Constitution interpose any obstacle to the exertion of that power.' In Chicago & E. I. R. Co. v. Chicago Heights Terminal T. R. Co., 317 Ill. 65, 147 N.E. 666, it was said: 'In this case the terminal company is engaged in transportation and carriage of goods for hire. The mere fact that......

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