Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission ex rel. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 32266

Decision Date22 January 1953
Docket NumberNo. 32266,32266
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
PartiesCHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO. et al. v. ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ex rel. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al.

Page 136

111 N.E.2d 136
414 Ill. 134
CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO. et al.
v.
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ex rel. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. et al.
No. 32266.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Jan. 22, 1953.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 24, 1953.

[414 Ill. 135] Ivan A. Elliott, Atty. Gen. (Milton Mallin and Wilbur S. Legg, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant Illinois Commerce Commission.

Erle J. Zoll, Jr., Howard D. Koontz and John W. Foster, all of Chicago (J. H. Wright, C. A. Helsell, J. W. Freels and H. J. Deany, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants Illinois Cent. R. Co. and others.

W. F. Peter, Bruce Dwinell and Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, all of Chicago (Joseph B. Fleming and John Bordes, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.

FULTON, Justice.

This is an appeal seeking review of an order of the circuit court of Cook County, entered on July 26, 1951, reversing a decision and order of the Illinois Commerce Commission of February 28, 1950, and later amended on March 28, 1950. The commission's order authorized the Illinois Central Railroad Company, hereinafter called appellant, and its subsidiary, the Kensington & Eastern Railroad Company, hereinafter called Kensington, to construct a spur track at grade from a point on the main line of the Kensington across the tracks of the Pullman Railroad Company, hereinafter called appellee, and a public highway known as Doty Avenue to a point in the Lake Calumet harbor area in the city of Chicago.

A joint application was filed on March 20, 1947, with the Commerce Commission by the appellant and the Kensington seeking permission to construct the spur line in question. The appellant is a trunk-line railroad operating in fourteen States and

Page 137

the Kensington is its wholly owned subsidiary operated from point of connection on the appellant railroad in the city of Chicago to a point on the Illinois-Indiana State line. The appellant's line of railroad is adjacent to and parallel to the Lake Calumet harbor area to the north and along the westerly side thereof, and the Kensington is adjacent[414 Ill. 136] to and parallel with the Lake Calumet harbor area on the west and on the south. The Kensington presently has no spur, industrial, team, switching or sidetrack into the harbor area. The application prayed a certificate of convenience and necessity authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of a spur track crossing appellee's track and the public highway into the Lake Calumet harbor area. The appellee filed an answer to the application denying that the two roads were adjacent to Lake Calumet and that for either of them to make service available to the harbor area it would be necessary for them to construct a spur into the Lake Calumet harbor area. It denied that public convenience and necessity required the construction of such a spur and affirmatively argued that such construction by the appellants would constitute an extension of line within the meaning of section 1(18) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 1(18), which is a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Subsequent thereto the commission granted leave to the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company to intervene on the ground that it had filed a petition with the Interstate Commerce Commission to acquire control of Pullman and accordingly became a party in interest. Inasmuch as no question has been raised as to the propriety of the Rock Island appearing in this proceeding nor any denial that it had acquired the rights of Pullman by reason of its acquisition of Pullman it will be grouped with Pullman in this cause and referred to as appellee.

The evidence in the case, together with the exhibits, is somewhat lengthy. Reducing it to the minimum essentials, it appears that the Pullman Railroad Company, appellee here, has a line which interposes itself between the Lake Calumet harbor area and the appellant and Kensington.

[414 Ill. 137] The mouth of the Calumet River, which empties into Lake Michigan, is located at approximately Ninetieth Street on the south side of the city of Chicago. The proposed Lake Calumet harbor development begins at approximately 110th Street and extends south to approximately 130th Street. From 95th Street to a point just south of 119th Street, the Pullman railroad lines lie a considerable distance east of the Illinois Central and the Kensington, and between those lines and the harbor area. At a point just south of 119th Street, the Kensington and the Pullman are immediately adjacent to each other in a southeasterly direction. At 127th Street the line of the Pullman railroad swings to the east and into the Calument harbor area. The line of the Kensington also swings to the east but is again south of the Pullman tracks.

Chronologically, the predecessor of Pullman, the Pullman Palace Car Railroad Company, came into being in 1880. In 1904 the appellant, through Kensington, began, and in 1909 completed, construction of a line of road eastward to the Illinois-Indiana State line. In 1906 Pullman was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • New York Central Railroad Co. v. Southern Railway Co., 62 C 1849.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 5 Febrero 1964
    ... ... United States District Court N. D. Illinois", E. D ... February 5, 1964. 226 F. Supp. 464 \xC2" ... Murphy, Jack Rand, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff ...         Bruce ... 1, paragraphs 18-22, of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1(18)-(22). The plaintiff and ... obtained from the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1938. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry ... ...
  • People v. Nixon
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 22 Enero 1953
    ... ... 125 ... No. 32540 ... Supreme Court of Illinois ... Jan. 22, 1953 ... Rehearing Denied March ... possession, shortly after the commission of a larceny or burglary, of stolen property, the ... ...
  • NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 1 Abril 1965
    ... ... UNITED STATES of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Defendants ... No. 36018 ... Co ...         Edwin Knachel, Cleveland, Ohio, Bruce Dwinell, Chicago, Ill., Joseph B. Fleming, John L. Bordes, ... Dolan, Cleveland, Ohio, for Illinois Cent. R. Co. and others ... Illinois Commerce Commission ex rel., 414 Ill. 134, 111 N.E.2d 136 (1953), which ... ...
  • Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company Calumet Harbor Terminals, Inc v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company United States v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company, s. 15
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 14 Noviembre 1966
    ... ... UNITED STATES and Interstate Commerce Commission, Appellants, v. NORFOLK AND WESTERN ... O'Brien, Jr., Chicago, Ill., and Richard A. Posner, Washington, D.C., ... Chicago, R.I ... Page 61 ... & P.R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission ex rel. Illinois ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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