Hoboken Manufacturers' R. Co. v. United States

Decision Date24 November 1942
Docket NumberCiv. No. 1100.
Citation47 F. Supp. 779
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey


John Drewen, of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiff.

E. M. Reidy, Asst. Chief Counsel, of Washington, D. C., Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, N. J., and Frank Coleman, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for the United States.

Before BIGGS, Circuit Judge, and FAKE and SMITH, District Judges.

BIGGS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, Hoboken Manufacturers' Railroad Company (referred to hereafter as Hoboken), in the case at bar seeks to set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, dated July 24, 1939, finding, after full hearing, that the divisions received by Hoboken out of joint class and commodity rates on traffic interchanged by it with Seatrain Lines, Inc., were not unjust or inequitable.

The plaintiff is a short switching railroad which runs along the waterfront of Hoboken, New Jersey. It connects with the Erie Railroad and through the Erie with other trunk line railroads. It exchanges freight and cars with those railroads. The Hoboken Railroad also serves industries and steamship piers along the Hoboken waterfront and, in particular, the pier of Seatrain Lines, Inc.

The defendant is the United States of America. The Interstate Commerce Commission was made a defendant, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 212 and 213 of the Judicial Code, as amended, 38 Stat. 220, 28 U.S.C.A. § 45a. Many of the eastern trunk line carriers intervened, and the argument for these carriers has been made by the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company.

This court has jurisdiction, pursuant to the provisions of the Acts of June 18, 1910 and October 22, 1913, the Commerce Act and the Urgent Deficiencies Act, as set forth in 38 Stat. 219, 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(28) and 38 Stat. 219, 220, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 43-48, inclusive. The suit at bar was brought to review a decision and order of the Commission dismissing a complaint brought by Hoboken, to secure a determination by the Commission of the just, reasonable, and equitable divisions of the joint through rates on lighterage-free freight interchanged by Hoboken with Seatrain Lines, Inc.

Seatrain Lines, Inc. (hereafter referred to as "Seatrain") operates three ships. These are fast four-decked vessels, carrying standard gauge railroad tracks. Two of the vessels can carry one hundred freight cars each and the third ninety-five cars. The vessels operate between Hoboken, New Jersey and Belle Chasse in Louisiana, via Havana, Cuba. When a Seatrain ship is put in position at its dock, it is next to a "cradle" which, by means of a large overhead crane, lifts the loaded freight car from the dock and carries it through one of a number of large hatches on the ship to one of the tracks within the vessel. The tracks of the cradle fit the tracks on ship, and the car is then pushed off the cradle to its place on the ship by a special little engine. There is one cradle for each track on each deck of the vessel and, when the loading of each deck is accomplished, the cradles are left in place flush with the deck, each cradle closing a hatch. In taking the car from ship to shore the process is reversed. By the use of the Seatrain method, goods and merchandise may be transported from shore to ship and from ship to shore without breaking bulk, and the necessity of loading and unloading the freight is eliminated.

This method of interchange is used between Seatrain and Hoboken. Approximately 40% of the cars interchanged by Hoboken with Seatrain move under lighterage-free rates, and about 60% under non-lighterage-free rates. With Seatrain freight regardless of how it is billed, whether as lighterage-free freight or non-lighterage-free freight, it is handled by Hoboken in precisely the same physical fashion.

When freight is shipped on lighterage-free rates, the carrier undertakes to deliver the freight at the foot of ship's tackle without any charge for lighterage.1 The term lighterage is used to describe all those steps taken to deliver freight from a railroad car to a point where the ship's tackle may lift it to the ship. Lighterage, therefore, is the loading, unloading, and transfer of freight between a car and a ship's side. In the case at bar we are concerned only with the lighterage-free rate, and how it shall be divided between Hoboken and the trunk line carriers.

The Commission has established a through-rate of $7 per ton, to shipside. On break-bulk lighterage-free freight the trunk lines receive for their share $5.65, and Hoboken receives $1.35. Of this $1.35, 60¢ goes to Hoboken as compensation for switching charges and 75¢ goes to it as reimbursement for the cost of loading, unloading, and transferring freight between the freight cars and shipside. On Seatrain freight, using that phrase to describe freight contained in cars lifted on the cradle to or from the Seatrain ship and in which the bulk is not broken, of the $7 through-rate to shipside, the trunk lines have refused to allot to Hoboken more than the sum of 60¢ for its switching charges, retaining the 75¢, which was saved due to elimination of loading and unloading charges. Hoboken claims that upon Seatrain freight the trunk lines should receive $5.65 as their share and Hoboken should receive 60¢ for switching as usual, and 75¢ to reimburse it for payments made to Seatrain for the right to use the special Seatrain labor-saving and time-saving facilities. Hoboken contends that, while it may not be entitled to the full sum of 75¢ in this connection, it is entitled to some part of the 75¢ for the facilities which it has made available which permit shipping by sea without breaking bulk.2

The contentions of Hoboken must be examined in the light of the corporate relations existing between Seatrain and Hoboken. Prior to 1932, Seatrain had begun negotiations with Hoboken for the use of the terminal facilities. Seatrain then learned that Hoboken was insolvent and bought up all of its stock at auction. Seatrain now owns all of the 4000 shares with the exception of five qualifying directors' shares. Six of Hoboken's seven directors are also directors of Seatrain. Four of Hoboken's eight officers are officers of Seatrain.

Graham M. Brush, the president of Seatrain and of Hoboken, is the inventor of the Seatrain ship and of the appliances for loading and unloading freight cars into and out of such ships. He assigned his patents to Railway Transports, Inc., a corporation in which he is one of 700 shareholders. The extent of his control of this corporation was not disclosed. Railway Transports, Inc., gave Seatrain an exclusive license under the patents, for which Seatrain pays as royalty the sum of approximately $50,000 per annum. The patents expire in 1944.

Hoboken and Seatrain entered into a contract dated November 21, 1932 (subsequent to the purchase of Hoboken's stock by Seatrain, although negotiations had been commenced prior to the purchase) which provided, in respect to freight transported by Hoboken and consigned for delivery to Seatrain, that delivery should be considered to be completed by Hoboken when the cars had been placed upon the cradle. Under the contract Seatrain had the right, upon its request, to have Hoboken place the cars at some convenient point near the cradle, and Seatrain itself was then to place the cars on the cradle as Hoboken's agent. By other provisions of the contract Hoboken authorized Seatrain, as its agent, to take the cars from the cradle. The contract provided also that Hoboken would pay Seatrain 40¢ per ton of freight (other than coal) loaded into, or discharged from, the Seatrain ships in cars.

By a later contract between Hoboken and Seatrain, dated February 24, 1937, effective as of March 1, 1937, it was provided that Hoboken would pay Seatrain 73¢ per ton (subject to possible revisions because of increases or decreases in the scale of longshoremen's wages) on all freight interchanged between them shipped on lighterage-free rates, and that Hoboken would pay Seatrain nothing on freight shipped on non-lighterage-free rates. Under this contract, Seatrain does not move the cars to or from the cradle. This service is performed by Hoboken.

The justification asserted by Hoboken for the sums paid by it to Seatrain is that, as the Seatrain appliances make it unnecessary to load or unload freight, the trunk line railroads are relieved of the expense of 75¢ per ton for which they ordinarily reimburse Hoboken when freight is moved under lighterage-free rates to or from water carriers other than Seatrain. Hoboken claims that since the trunk line carriers get these advantages by reason of Hoboken's contract with Seatrain, the savings effected should accrue to Hoboken and not to the trunk line carriers.

Under the contract of 1937, Seatrain charges Hoboken 73¢ for the Seatrain devices when used on lighterage-free freight. This would leave Hoboken 2¢ out of the 75¢, which Hoboken alleges it should receive under a new division of the $7 through-rate. If Hoboken's contentions were to prevail, it would be able to operate at a profit. Otherwise, Hoboken will operate (as it has in the past) at a loss. The Commission indicated, however, that if Hoboken had not made the 73¢ payment it would have operated at a profit, averaging the years 1936 and 1937.

Part of the Commission's report is devoted to a discussion of the various elements which compose Hoboken's necessary operating expenses and its income. Seatrain leases the Seatrain pier and slip from Hoboken. The rental is based on Hoboken's expenditures. These include rent, taxes, insurance, depreciation, repairs, maintenance and dredging, plus an estimated return of 6% on Hoboken's investment in the property. The crane which handles the cradles also is leased by Seatrain from Hoboken. Its original cost was about $85,000. The rental for all of the foregoing for the year beginning March 1, 1937, the effective date of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State ex rel. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Department of Public Service
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1943
    ... ... throughout the states of Washington, Oregon, northern ... California and a small portion ... St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States, 298 ... U.S. 38, 73, 56 S.Ct. 720, 735, 80 L.Ed. 1033) of a ... 402, 62 S.Ct. 326, 86 L.Ed. 301; Hoboken ... Manufacturers' R. Co. v. United States, D.C., 47 ... ...
  • State ex rel. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Department of Public Service, 28594.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1943
    ...1201; Gray v. [19 Wn.2d 216] Powell, 314 U.S. 402, 62 S.Ct. 326, 86 L.Ed. 301; Hoboken Manufacturers' R. Co. v. United States, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 779. In the case of Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 91, 33 S.Ct. 185, 186, 57 L.Ed. 431, the court co......
  • Seatrain Lines v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 21, 1952
    ...via Seatrain. (7) Hoboken Manufacturers Railroad Company v. Akron C. & Y. Ry. Co., No. 27630, 234 ICC 114 (1939); Hoboken Manufacturers' R. Co. v. U. S., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 779; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Hoboken R. Co., 320 U.S. 368, 64 S.Ct. 159, 88 L.Ed. 107 — Divisions between Hoboken M......
  • Interstate Commerce Commission v. Hoboken Manufacturers Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1943
    ...the District Court for New Jersey, three judges sitting, set aside an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, Hoboken Mfrs.' R. Co. v. United States, D.C., 47 F.Supp. 779. The question is whether appellee, a terminal switching rail carrier, is entitled to an increase in the divisions w......
  • 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