Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Tabor Grain Co.
| Decision Date | 31 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | 79 C 0011 to 79 C 0013,79 C 3723 and 79 C 4216.,79 C 1412 to 79 C 1415,79 C 1896,79 C 2991 to 79 C 2995,79 C 1703 |
| Citation | 488 F. Supp. 110 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TABOR GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. COOK INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS GRAIN CORPORATION, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. PILLSBURY GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. GARNAC GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BUNGE CORPORATION, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CARGILL, INC., Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DREYFUS GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CONTINENTAL GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FARMERS CO-OP GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FISHER FARMERS GRAIN AND COAL COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DELAND FARMERS CO-OP GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ASHKUM GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CISCO CO-OP GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WELDON GRAIN & CO-OP COMPANY, Defendant. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ANCHOR GRAIN COMPANY, Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Raymond E. Belstner, Chicago, Ill., Joseph W. Phebus, Phillips, Phebus, Tummelson & Bryan, Urbana, Ill., for plaintiff.
Stephen C. Neal, Robert J. Bates, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., John H. Caldwell, Thompson, Hine, Caldwell & Greene, Washington, D. C., Richard P. Reising, Decatur, Ill., for defendant Tabor Grain Co.
Stephen C. Neal, Robert J. Bates, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., for Bunge Corp. and Garnac Grain Co.
Stephen C. Neal, Robert J. Bates, Jr., Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, Ill., John H. Caldwell, Thompson, Hine, Caldwell & Greene, Washington, D. C., James L. Anderson, Bloomington, Ill., for Illinois Grain Corp. Harold E. Spencer, Stephen Herman, Belnap, McCarthy, Spencer, Sweeney & Harkaway, Chicago, Ill., for Cargill, Inc. and Pillsbury Grain Co.
Walton N. Smith, Patricia F. Cross, Lord, Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Ill., for Cook Industries, Inc.
Michael W. Coffield, Charles W. Deuser, II, Coffield, Ungaretti, Harris & Slavin, Chicago, Ill., for Anchor Grain Co., Ashkum Grain Co., Cisco Co-op Grain Co., Deland Farmers Grain and Coal Co., Farmers Co-op Grain Co., Fisher Farmers Grain and Coal Co., and Weldon Grain & Co-op Co.
Daniel R. Murray, Robert A. Wason, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., Andrew P. Goldstein, Washington, D. C., for Continental Grain Co. and Louis Dreyfus Grain Co.
In January, 1979, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company ("ICG") filed this action against Tabor Grain Company to collect outstanding tariff charges accrued against grain shipments which were made under the terms of ICG Tariff 604-A, ICG 92. ("Tariff 604").1 ICG has brought fifteen similar suits, seven transferred from the Central District of Illinois, alleging that other grain companies failed to pay appropriate freight charges pursuant to Tariff 604.2 There are no factual disputes and the parties have stipulated to the pertinent issues. The defendants in these consolidated cases have moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P.
From 1972 to 1978, ICG maintained multiple-car export grain tariffs. One of these, Tariff 604, provided for high-volume shipping at a reduced rate for 100-car unit train shipments of grain for export. To be eligible for these lower rates, a grain shipment was required to weigh a minimum of 9,800 tons and to be shipped in no more than 100 covered hopper cars. In addition, a minimum of ten such train shipments was required during a 12-month period. This requirement could be met by two sets of five consecutive train trips.3 The key provision of Tariff 604 for the purpose of this litigation is Item 25(c). In short, Item 25(c) states that the lower rates will not apply whenever the ICG is required to switch more than four cuts of empty cars to, or more than four cuts of loaded cars from, the shipper's facility.4 If any of the above conditions are not met, the higher export rates for four-car shipments required by a different tariff would apply.
Most of the defendants are in the business of buying grain for export resale.5 In order to transport the grain to seaports for export, these defendant-shippers have arranged with the ICG to operate unit grain trains under Tariff 604. The grain handled by the defendants has been shipped from their own and a number of other elevators located throughout Illinois and Indiana.6 The defendants shippers have been loading grain into 100 car trains for a number of years and have received the lower rate under Tariff 604. Plaintiff, however, now alleges that the defendants failed to comply with the four-cut requirement in some or all shipments involving certain trains operating from the nine loading origins in Illinois from 1976 through 1978.7
There is no dispute that at each of the nine loading origins more than four switches often were executed on the movement and loading of the 100 car trains. The dispute centers around whether these extra cuts were violative of the tariff and/or whether the layout of the elevators themselves rendered the 604 rates inapplicable.8 Each of the sixteen complaints involve the loading of grain at one or more of the nine elevator origins located at Ashkum, Cisco, Cropsey, Dalton City, Deland, Dewey, Macon, Sullivan, and Weldon.9 Personnel of the ICG had attended and observed the loading procedures at these elevator origins as to the shipments in question, but never had expressed the view that the operations did not fall within the terms of Tariff 604. Moreover, the ICG never advised the shippers that rental of ICG equipment for additional movements of cars was to be counted toward the four cuts permitted by 604 or that 100 car trains would be disqualified by such movements. In fact, a number of the affiants on several occasions have submitted letters from the ICG indicating that the elevator layouts complied with 604 requirements and that shipment of grain from these locations would be eligible for the lower rates permitted under Tariff 604.10
The scope of the issues has been considerably narrowed. The parties have stipulated that if the shipments in question complied with all the terms and conditions of Tariff 604, only the rates in that tariff would be applicable. To the extent that these shipments allegedly did not comply with the requirements, the parties have agreed that noncompliance was due solely to failure to meet the terms and conditions of Item 25(c) of Tariff 604, the four-cut requirement.11 Thus, there remain for resolution three legal issues presented by defendants' motion for summary judgment. First, there is the question of whether certain shipments of grains from the nine above-mentioned loading locations complied with the four-cut requirement of Tariff 604. Second, there is the issue of whether cuts made beyond the four-cut requirement by use of rented ICG equipment and crews constitute a violation of Tariff 604's four-cut rule. Defendants argue that the historical application of Tariff 804 permits such rentals. Plaintiff, on the other hand, stresses that the language of Tariff 804 permits no such rentals. Moreover, plaintiff contends that even if Tariff 804 could be so construed, it in no way modifies the 604 requirement of four or less cuts of cars. Finally, plaintiff argues that defendants are estopped from asserting that plaintiff has waived his right to collect legally owned freight charges.
Item 25(c) of Tariff 604, entitled "Terminal or Transit Privileges or Services," describes the four-cut requirement:
Rates named herein will not apply when due to shipper's disability assembly of trains at origin requires Illinois Central Gulf Railroad to switch more than four cuts of empty cars to shipper's facility or more than four cuts of loaded cars from shipper's facility or when due to consignee's disability distribution of train at destination requires Illinois Central Gulf Railroad to switch more than four cuts of loaded cars to consignee's facility or more than four cuts of empty cars from consignee's facility.
Plaintiff argues that Tariff 604 provides that the tariff will not apply when the ICG is required to switch more than four empty cars to or more than four loaded cars from the shipper's facility.12 In addition, plaintiff asserts that the four-cut language implicitly contains a trackage requirement; i. e., that an elevator can comply with the tariff only when there is sufficient sidetrack on either side of the elevator spout to hold 25 cars. In this way, only four cuts would be required to load and move a 100-car unit train.
For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that the four-cut requirement refers to only those cuts performed by the ICG pursuant to the terms and conditions of the tariff, in no way restricting the number of additional cuts which may be performed by defendants or by others on a rental basis. In addition, the Court finds nothing in Tariff 604 which explicitly or implicitly requires an elevator to have a certain length of track available to it in order to qualify for the lower rates.
It is undisputed that more than four cuts were required and, indeed, were performed in loading the 100-car unit trains at the nine elevator...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Am. Independence Mines v. United States Dep't of Agriculture
...rehash of the arguments previously presented affords no basis for a revision of the Court's order.Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Tabor Grain Co., 488 F.Supp. 110, 122 (N.D.Ill.1980). Where Rule 59(e) motionsare merely being pursued "as a means to reargue matters already argued and di......
-
In re Cook
...motion must present new evidence in support of the motion, or point out "manifest errors." Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company v. Tabor Grain Co., 488 F.Supp. 110, 122 (N.D. Ill. 1980). Furthermore, a court will not find "injustice" when a party could have easily avoided the outcome of a......
-
Rutili v. O'Neill (In re O'Neill)
...fairly entered into is controlling and conclusive on the parties and this Court is bound to enforce it. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Tabor Grain Co., 488 F.Supp. 110, 122 (N.D.Ill.1980). The trial stipulation at issue in the motion before this Court is purely factual, and involves whether ......
-
Agola v. Hagner
...merely to relitigate old matters already considered or give a disappointed litigant another chance. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Tabor Grain Co., 488 F.Supp. 110, 122 (N.D.Ill.1980). Plaintiffs here are seeking reconsideration of the cumulative evidence and theories already conside......