Railroad Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company

Decision Date02 February 1973
Citation490 S.W.2d 763
PartiesRAILROAD COMMISSION of Kentucky, Appellant, v. The CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

Chat Chancellor, Frankfort, for appellant .

Porter M. Gray, Gray, Woods & Cooper, Ashland, for appellee.

CATINNA, Commissioner.

The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company made application to the Railroad Commission of Kentucky for permission to close its freight agency at Hitchins, Carter County, Kentucky and transfer the duties performed by the agency to its freight agency at Olive Hill. After a hearing the Commission entered an order denying the application. C & O refused to comply with the order, and the Commission filed an action in the Franklin Circuit Court to enforce compliance. The court reversed the Commission and ordered that C & O discontinue its agency at Hitchins and operate it as a non-agency station through Olive Hill. The Commission appeals.

It is admitted by C & O that the Hitchins station is profitable and that the revenue generated exceeded cost 'quite a bit.' The company sought discontinuance, however, as an economy measure claiming that it would save $20,000 per year.

Witnesses for C & O testified that the patrons of the Hitchins station would be served as conveniently by the Olive Hill station. However, it was admitted that Hitchins was some nineteen miles from Olive Hill and that in order for the present patrons of Hitchins to obtain service it would be necessary for them to either telephone or make a trip to Olive Hill each time they desired to use the facilities of the Hitchins station. There was evidence that the telephone service was poor, and although the round trip of some forty miles to Olive Hill could be made on a surfaced road, it was time consuming.

The hearing was extensive. A number of witnesses testified in opposition to the application. Evidence was that the Hitchins freight agency was used in the shipment of fertilizer into the area as well as surplus commodities for distribution to schools in the surrounding communities. It was also shown that the agency was used by a lumber company for the shipment of finished lumber, chips to a paper mill, and other wood products. Some logs and other unprocessed lumber were also shipped.

The primary source of revenue for the Hitchins agency was the General Refractories Company, a manufacturer of bricks, which provided 90 to 95% of the entire business of the Hitchins agency.

A union representative further testified that the number of cars handled through the agency had been increasing from year to year. The witnesses all agreed that the removal of the agency would result in the loss of adequate freight service to the area.

C & O and the court have placed substantial emphasis upon the fact that General Refractories did not oppose the application, particularly in view of the fact that it was responsible for 95% of the business and revenue of the station.

Actually, there was no reason for General Refractories to protest, as the record reveals that C & O had previously agreed that it would provide the company with the same, or better, services as those then being received through the Hitchins agency. Rather than being inconvenienced, the company would be better served by the change. No such agreement had been offered other patrons of Hitchins prior to the hearing.

When the reason for General Refractories' failure to protest is placed in proper perspective, it must be concluded that the minority (5% of the business and revenue) which did protest could not be truly so classified,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 2002
    ...supra at 834; Energy Regulatory Commission v. Kentucky Power Co., Ky.App., 605 S.W.2d 46, 50 (1980); Railroad Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., Ky., 490 S.W.2d 763, 766 (1973). 11. See Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. King, Ky.App., 657 S.W.2d 250, 251 (1983); Piper,......
  • Dep't of Labor v. Morel Constr. Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2011
    ...judgment as to the inferences to be drawn from the evidence of record for that of the administrative agency. Railroad Comm'n v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 490 S.W.2d 763, 766 (Ky.1973). If the court finds the rule of law was applied to facts supported by substantial evidence, the final order of......
  • Wilson v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, No. 2005-CA-002394-MR (Ky. App. 12/1/2006)
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 2006
    ...supra at 834; Energy Regulatory Commission v. Kentucky Power Co., 605 S.W.2d 46, 50 (Ky.App. 1980); Railroad Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 490 S.W.2d 763, 766 (Ky. 1973). A court's function in administrative matters is one of review, not reinterpretation. See Kentucky Unemplo......
  • Ashland Hospital Corporation v. Commonwealth, No. 2006-CA-001010-MR (Ky. App. 12/14/2007)
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 2007
    ...S.W.2d at 834; Energy Regulatory Commission v. Kentucky Power Co., 605 S.W.2d 46, 50 (Ky.App. 1980); Railroad Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., 490 S.W.2d 763, 766 (Ky. 1973). A court's function in administrative matters is one of review, not reinterpretation. See Kentucky Unempl......
  • 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