Midland Valley Railroad Co. v. Barkley
Decision Date | 14 February 1927 |
Docket Number | 181 |
Citation | 291 S.W. 431,172 Ark. 898 |
Parties | MIDLAND VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. BARKLEY |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District; John E Tatum, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
O. E Swan and Pryor, Miles & Pryor, for appellant.
U. C May and Evans & Evans, for appellee.
Plaintiffs below, appellees here, instituted this action against the defendant below, appellant here, to recover damages for failure to furnish cars in which to ship coal from appellees' mine, located near Excelsior, in Sebastian County, Arkansas. Appellees alleged in substance that, in June, 1922, they were operating under a lease a coal mine on which they had expended and were expending large sums of money; that the appellant was an Arkansas corporation, having a line of railroad extending to appellee's coal mine, over which appellee shipped coal in carload lots; that, about the date above mentioned, when the appellees were preparing to mine and load one car of coal per day from their mine, the cars containing an average of 45 tons of coal each, the appellant demanded of the appellees that they sell to the appellant their output of coal at a price of $ 3.75 per ton, when coal was selling on the market at a much greater price; that appellant threatened appellees that, unless they sold their output of coal to appellants at the above price, the appellant would refuse to furnish appellees with coal-cars; that appellees refused to accede to the demand of appellant, and appellant thereupon wrongfully refused to furnish the appellees coal-cars to ship the output of their mines, from August 1, 1922, until January 1, 1923, during which time the appellant only furnished to appellees twelve coal-cars. The appellees alleged that the refusal of appellant to furnish coal-cars compelled appellees to shut down their mine. Appellees then set forth in detail the damages alleged to have accrued to them by reason of the alleged wrongful failure of the appellant to furnish coal-cars as demanded by the appellees. The concluding portion of the complaint is as follows:
The appellant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the court, that "the act of Congress known as the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended by the Transportation Act and other acts of Congress amendatory thereof, confer exclusive authority upon the Interstate Commerce Commission in the matter of distribution of coal-cars and jurisdiction in matters of alleged failure to furnish the same."
Appellant's demurrer was overruled, and it answered, denying specifically the allegations of the complaint. It was alleged in substance that, under the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, certain rules and regulations adopted by the United States Railroad Administration in December, 1923, were in effect during the period alleged in the complaint. The appellant alleged that the appellees' mine was what is termed a "wagon-load mine," in that the coal produced at the mine was hauled in a wagon to the spur or switch-track upon which it was loaded into the cars, and was therefore not rated as mines loaded from a tipple were rated under the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Appellees then set forth certain bulletins issued under the rules and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission fixing the rates for tipple mines, which it attached to its answer, and made exhibits thereto. The appellant alleged that, notwithstanding the appellees' mine was without a rating for furnishing cars under the orders and rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission, the appellant did furnish appellees cars in which to load their coal, but, acting under the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission, when unable to obtain a sufficient supply of open cars or regular coal-cars, appellant furnished to appellees box-cars in which to ship their coal, until the appellees finally refused to use such cars. The appellant further alleged that, from August 1, 1922, to January 1, 1923, there was an unusual and unprecedented and unforeseen demand for cars in which to ship coal on appellant's railroad, and that appellant was therefore unable to supply the demand for cars to ship coal from wagon-load mines, and was not able to supply the demand for cars to mines that loaded directly into the cars by use of tipple. The appellant also set up that the claim of the appellees for damages accruing one year prior to the filing of the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
The testimony is exceedingly voluminous, and we deem it wholly unnecessary to set forth the testimony bearing upon the issue as to whether or not the appellant failed to furnish cars as alleged in the complaint, and, if so, the amount of damages appellees sustained by reason of such failure, because, if the trial court had jurisdiction of the action, we are convinced that the testimony was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict on the issue of whether or not the appellant failed to furnish cars and also as to the amount of damages which accrued to appellees by reason of such failure. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the appellees in the sum of $ 2,000. Judgment was entered in favor of the appellees for that sum, from which is this appeal.
1. Section 402 of what is designated as the Transportation Act of Congress, February 28, 1920, amends § 1 of the Interstate Commerce Act, approved May 29, 1917, to read as follows:
Paragraph (12) makes it the duty of carriers by railroads to make just and reasonable distribution of cars for transportation of coal among the coal mines served by them, whether located upon their own lines or lines dependent upon them for car supply. When the car supply is not equal to the requirements of the mines, it is the duty of the carriers to maintain and supply just and reasonable ratings of such mines and to count each and every car furnished to or used by any such mine for transportation of coal, against the mine, and a penalty is attached for failure to comply with this provision.
Under paragraph 13 the Interstate Commerce Commission is authorized to order any or all carriers by railroad subject to the act to file with the Commission, from time to time, their rules and regulations with respect to car service, which rules and regulations shall be incorporated in their schedules, showing rates, fares and charges for transportation, and making the carrier subject to all provisions of the act.
Under paragraph No. 14 the Commission may, after hearing on a complaint, or upon its own initiative, establish reasonable rules, regulations and practices with respect to car service by railroads subject to the act, and prescribe a penalty for nonobservance of these rules, etc.
Under paragraph 15, whenever the Commission is of the opinion that shortage of equipment, congestion of traffic, or other emergency exists, with or without complaint, or on its own initiative and with or without notice to the carrier, and without hearing or filing of report, it is empowered (a) to suspend the operation of any or all rules, regulations, or practices then established with respect to car service, for such time as may be determined by the Commission; (b) to make such just and reasonable direction with respect to car service, without regard to the ownership, as between carriers of locomotives, cars, and other vehicles, during such emergency, as, in its opinion, will best promote the service in the interest of the public and the commerce of the people, upon such terms of compensation as between the carriers as they may agree upon, or, in the event of their disagreement, as the Commission may, after subsequent hearing, find to be just and reasonable, etc. 41 U.S. Statutes at Large, ch. 91, p. 476, § 402.
By an act of Congress, September 22, 1922, 42 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 1025, an act was again passed entitled "An act to declare a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Midland Valley Co v. Barkley
... ... Evans, of Booneville, Ark., for respondents ... Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court ... Barkley and Burnett operated a wagon coal mine in Arkansas located about a quarter of a mile from the line of the Midland Valley Railroad, a corporation of that state. They shipped their coal by that carrier, largely in interstate commerce. In the spring and summer of 1922 there was a widespread strike in bituminous coal mines throughout the United States. When mining was resumed in August, an acute car shortage developed. Coal is ... ...
-
Midland Valley R. Co. v. Barkley
... ... (No. 181.) ... Supreme Court of Arkansas ... February 14, 1927 ... Rehearing Denied March 14, 1927 ... Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; Jno. E. Tatum, Judge ... Action by Thomas Barkley and another against the Midland Valley Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed ... Pryor, Miles & Pryor, of Ft. Smith, for appellant ... Evans & Evans and U. C. May, all of Bonneville, for appellees ... WOOD, J ... Plaintiffs below, ... ...
-
Moody Equipment & Supply Co. v. Union Nat. Bank, 81-10
... ... In the case of Midland Valley Railway Co. v. Barkley, 172 Ark. 898, 291 S.W. 431 (1927), a new ... See: Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Bushey, 180 Ark. 19, 20 S.W.2d 614 ... In the present ... ...
-
Brinkman v. Hovermale
... ... 166, 11 N.E. 250; ... [13 N.E.2d 890.] ... Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Barkley, 1927, 172 Ark ... 898, 291 S.W. 431; Ford v ... ...