Industrial Development Co. of Little Rock v. Thompson, 15446.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15446.,15446. |
| Citation | 231 F.2d 825 |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF LITTLE ROCK, Appellant, v. Guy A. THOMPSON, Trustee, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor, and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Richard C. Butler, Little Rock, Ark. (House, Moses & Holmes, Little Rock, Ark., were with him on the brief), for appellant.
Herschel H. Friday, Jr., Little Rock, Ark. (Pat Mehaffy, Little Rock, Ark., was with him on the brief), for appellee Guy A. Thompson, trustee, Missouri Pac. R. Co., debtor.
Before SANBORN, JOHNSEN and VOGEL, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff (appellant) upon the ground that the plaintiff was not a "party in interest" within the meaning of Title 49 U.S.C.A. § 1, paragraph (20), which provides in substance, that the construction of an extension of a line of railroad, in the absence of a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commission, may be enjoined at the suit of "any party in interest."
The complaint, which was filed on July 15, 1955, stated that the purpose of the action as against the defendant (appellee) Thompson, Trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Debtor, was "to enjoin the Missouri Pacific from constructing a railroad and thereby extending its lines into new territory owned and developed by the plaintiff, without first obtaining from the Interstate Commerce Commission a certificate of convenience and necessity authorizing such extension."
The complaint alleged, in substance, that the plaintiff owned a 600-acre tract of land near the city of Little Rock; that the main line of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company is close to the tract on the East and the main line of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company is close to the tract on the West; that the plaintiff holds the land for the purpose of developing it into industrial sites by the installation of utilities, railroad tracks and other facilities; that the plaintiff has expended substantial sums of money in having experts lay out the location of utilities and railroad tracks to afford the maximum use of the land; that joint service by two or more railroads is desirable; that the plaintiff, in advertising industrial sites for sale, has represented that the entire tract will be served by the Rock Island and Missouri Pacific on a joint basis, and has, in effecting one sale, contracted that the site sold will be served by both railroads on such a basis.
The plaintiff further alleged in its complaint that it was a "party in interest" because the Missouri Pacific, in constructing the extension of its lines, was attempting, through eminent domain proceedings in a state court, to condemn a right-of-way across the plaintiff's property, and because of the plaintiff's interest in having joint rail facilities laid out according to its overall plan for the development of its industrial district; that the Missouri Pacific has, in condemnation proceedings, acquired a right-of-way from a point on its main line to the North boundary of the plaintiff's property; that on July 13, 1955, the Missouri Pacific commenced construction of a railroad track on the right-of-way; that this is an extension of its lines, requiring a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commission under Title 49 U. S.C.A. § 1, paragraph (18); that the Missouri Pacific has obtained no such certificate; that the extension is for the purpose of establishing single line service to industries which may locate in the Little Rock Industrial District; that the plaintiff, in reliance upon representations made to it by responsible representatives of the Missouri Pacific in the spring of 1955 that arrangements would be made to provide joint service with the Rock Island to the industrial district, contracted with the American Machine & Foundry Company, to which the plaintiff had sold, or was selling, a tract of its land, that that Company should have joint rail service; and that the Missouri Pacific is estopped to construct tracks into the area for single line service, and should be enjoined.
The defendant Thompson, Trustee, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on two grounds: (1) that the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiff was not a "party in interest", and (2) that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The Rock Island filed an "Answer and Complaint for a Declaratory Judgment," in support of the plaintiff's claim for an injunction, in which it asked that, if the court should deny the plaintiff the injunction prayed for by it, the court declare that the construction by the Rock Island of tracks into the industrial district would not be an "extension" of its line but would be spur, industrial, team, switching or side tracks within the meaning of Title 49 U.S.C.A. § 1, paragraph (22).
At the hearing on the motion of the defendant Thompson, Trustee, to dismiss, the plaintiff made offers of proof in support of the allegations of its complaint. The court, on July 22, 1955, ordered that the complaint be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not a "party in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masszonia v. Washington
...364 U.S. 911, 81 S.Ct. 274, 5 L.Ed.2d 225 (1960); Bodkin v. United States, 226 F.2d 55, 56 (2d Cir. 1959); Industrial Dev. Co. v. Thompson, 231 F.2d 825, 828-829 (8th Cir. 1956); Sawyer v. Pioneer Mill Co., 300 F.2d 200, 201-202 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 814, 83 S.Ct. 24, 9 L.Ed.2d......
-
Allied Mutual Insurance Company v. Lysne
...same case, 190 F.2d 234, 236-237, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 851, 72 S.Ct. 79, 96 L.Ed. 642. Cf. Industrial Development Co. of Little Rock v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 231 F.2d 825, 828-829. The judgment appealed from is vacated and the case is remanded for trial on the 1 It appears from the record......
-
Dyer v. Securities and Exchange Commission
...L.Ed. 387; United States v. Alaska Steamship Co., 253 U.S. 113, 115-116, 40 S.Ct. 448, 64 L.Ed. 808; Industrial Development Co. of Little Rock v. Thompson, 8 Cir., 231 F.2d 825, 828-829 and cases cited. The fact that a decision in a moot case will establish a rule for controlling predicted ......
-
Clouser v. Hot Shoppes, Inc.
...of the foregoing and of the record before this court, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this court that the judgment of the District Court, 231 F.2d 825, substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion, is It is further ORDERED by the court that appellee herein recover from appellant its......