Malvern & F.V.R. Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 September 1910
• Parties: MALVERN & F.V.R. CO. v. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

182 F. 685

MALVERN & F.V.R. CO. v. CHICAGO, R.I. & P. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division.

September 1, 1910

Mehaffy Williams, Cockrill & Armistead, for complainant.

E. B Pierce and Thos. S. Buzbee, for defendant.

ROGERS District Judge.

The complainant filed its bill in equity, praying for an injunction against the defendant, the Chicago, Rock Island &amp Pacific Railway Company, based upon the following statement of facts: The complainant and defendant, and two other corporations, to wit, the Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad Company, and the Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company, on the 13th of June, 1907, executed what, for a better name, I denominate a 'quadripartite agreement,' and on the 4th of January, 1909, executed two other like agreements, which superseded the first. Under these several agreements all of the parties have been conducting their business from the time they were executed up to the present time. However, the Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana Railroad and the Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Company, parties to those agreements, are not made parties to this suit. The bill seeks to enjoin the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company from breaching the agreements dated January 4, 1909. The bill alleges diverse citizenship and the necessary amount in controversy to give this court jurisdiction. These contracts are voluminous, and they involve moving considerations of great value from each of the contracting parties to each of the others, and likewise contain mutual benefits. Nothing, however, contained in the contract, is essential to an understanding of the question involved in this case, except sections 4 and 10 of the agreement of January 4, 1909. These provisions are as follows:

'(4) The Rock Island Company agrees to establish a train service to handle at least twenty (20) of said cars per day, to be operated from the junction of the Freeo Company with the Railroad Company to the mills of the Lumber Company, and the Freeo Company agrees to deliver at least twenty (20) loaded cars per day to the Rock Island Company for transportation; provided, that upon twenty-four (24) hours' notice the Freeo Company may discontinue said cars from time to time; and provided, further, that if the Freeo Company shall fail to furnish twenty (20) loaded cars per day for transportation, or shall fail to give twenty-four (24) hours' notice as aforesaid, it, the said Freeo Company, shall pay to the Rock Island Company the full amount of all expenses incurred by said Rock Island Company, including wages of train crews, in preparing to move said twenty (20) loaded cars per day.'

'(10) The Rock Island Company agrees to publish through interstate rates on yellow pine lumber, in connection with the Freeo Company, covered by the foregoing paragraph, and, on all out-bound shipments delivered to the Rock Island Company under these tariffs, the Rock Island Company agrees to pay the Freeo Company the sum or three (3) cents per one hundred (100) pounds, as a division of the through rates, for its service in transporting the logs from the forest to the mill and delivering the finished product to it at its connection at or near Walco.'

The bill seeks to enjoin the defendant from breaching the provisions quoted, by publishing a new tariff of rates canceling the tariffs under which both roads have been operating heretofore and are operating now, in conformity with the provisions of the contracts quoted, and by denying to the complainant road any joint rate with it, and by ceasing all divisions of rates, earnings, and profits on freight transferred to it from the lines of the complainant road. The bill alleges that the complainant is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Arkansas for the organization and incorporation of railroad companies, and is chartered by said state to operate a railroad company, and is engaged in the business of carrying freight and passengers for hire as a common carrier, and is operating a railroad, and is engaged in the business of carrying freight and passengers for hire; that it uses in the transaction of its business the distance tariff prescribed and published by the Arkansas State Railroad Commission, and the joint through tariff prescribed and published by the traffic association known as the Southwestern Lines Tariff Committee, which said tariff is published by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company and other carriers, and is filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States for use in interstate traffic; that the defendant is a railroad corporation chartered under the laws of Illinois, authorized to operate a railroad or railroads as a common carrier; that complainant's road connects with the road of defendant in Arkansas, and that the defendant's road is authorized under the laws of the state of Arkansas, and is engaged in the common carriage of freight and passengers for hire, and is a citizen of the state of Illinois. The bill is full and specific, but enough has been said to present the question involved.

The defendant company admits all the allegations of the bill including the execution of the contract and the operation of its road in pursuance thereof since its execution, and asserts its willingness to abide by the contract, if valid. In substance it asserts that from the...