Shealey v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1924
• Docket Number: 11632.
• Citation: 126 S.E. 622,131 S.C. 144
• Parties: SHEALEY ET AL., RAILROAD COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

126 S.E. 622

131 S.C. 144

SHEALEY ET AL., RAILROAD COMMISSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. ET AL.

No. 11632.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 31, 1924

Mandamus by Frank W. Shealey and others, composing the Railroad Commission of South Carolina, against the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and another. Writ issued.

The petition, order, and return, referred to in the opinion follow:

The petition of your petitioners above named respectfully shows to the court:

I. That the petitioners were at the times hereinafter stated, and are now, the duly elected and qualified Railroad Commission of the state of South Carolina, except at the time the order hereinafter referred to was passed Hon. R. J. Wade was a member of the said Commission, he having been succeeded by Hon. S.C. Blease on the _____ day of March, 1924.

II. That the respondents, Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, were at the times hereinafter mentioned, and are now, railway corporations organized and existing under the laws of certain states of the United States of America, and were and are now operating their lines of railway as common carriers by and through the town of Mullins, S. C., each of said railroads maintaining a separate station in said town for the receipt and discharge of passengers and freight.

III. That upon complaint being made to the petitioners composing the Railroad Commission of the state of South Carolina that the facilities of the respondents, Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, at Mullins S. C., were inadequate and unsuitable to meet the needs and the convenience of the public and of those shipping and receiving freight over the lines of railway of the respondents, and that an interchange track should be established between the roads operated by respondents, the said Railroad Commission, after notice to respondents Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, held a hearing on January 30, 1924, at which the public and the respondents herein were represented.

IV. That on February 23, 1924, the petitioners, composing the Railroad Commission of the state of South Carolina, after a full and fair hearing and consideration of the facts in the case, issued their order No. 276, requiring that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company construct and maintain a connecting track between their lines at Mullins, S. C., as is required by law, a copy of said order No. 276 being hereto attached, marked Exhibit A, and made a part of this petition.

V. That a copy of the said order No. 276, issued by this Commission of February 23, 1924, was served upon the respondents herein but the said respondents refuse to obey said order, although the time fixed therein for work to begin, and full compliance, has expired.

VI. That on May 5, 1924, the petitioners, composing the Railroad Commission of the state of South Carolina, requested the Attorney General of the state of South Carolina to commence this action on its behalf to compel the said respondents, the said Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, to comply with their said order No. 276.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus be issued by this honorable court, compelling the respondents, Seaboard Air Line Railway Company and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, corporations, to comply with the terms of said order No. 276 of petitioners herein, composing the Railroad Commission of the state of South Carolina, and for such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted, Samuel M. Wolfe, Attorney General, Jno. M. Daniel, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for Petitioners. State of South Carolina, County of Richland.

Personally appeared before me, Frank W. Shealy, who, being duly sworn, says that he is a member of the Railroad Commission of the state of South Carolina, the petitioners herein, that he has read the foregoing petition, and that the matters and things therein stated are true of his own knowledge.

Frank W. Shealy.

Sworn to before me this 21st day of May, A. D. 1924.

J. P. Darby,

Notary Public for S. C.

Exhibit A.

February 23, 1924.

Order No. 276.

In re Interchange Track Between Seaboard Air Line Ry. and Atlantic Coast Line R. R. at Mullins, S. C.

Seaboard Air Line Railway Company:

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company:

This matter first came before the Railroad Commission of South Carolina in May, 1923. Considerable correspondence and several conferences have been had in connection with same, and on January 30, 1924, a hearing was held in the office of the Commission and all testimony was taken that was possible to obtain at that time. The town of Mullins, S. C., was represented by R. D. Christman, Secretary Mullins, Chamber of Commerce; the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. was represented by W. H. Newell, General Superintendent, and W. H. Newell, Jr., Superintendent; the Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. was represented by W. L. Stanley, Vice President.

After going into this matter a majority of the Commission reached the conclusion that the law of South Carolina in regard to these facilities was mandatory unless the Commission found that such facilities were unnecessary. Therefore the Commission issues the following order:

It is ordered that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company construct and maintain a connecting track between their lines at Mullins, S. C., as required by law.

It is further ordered that this work commence within 60 days from date hereof and be completed as rapidly as is possible.

This order to remain in effect until the further orders of this Commission.

By order of the Commission.

[Signed] Frank W. Shealy, Chairman.

[Signed] J. P. Darby, Secretary.

Return of Respondent Seaboard Air Line Railway Company to Petition for Mandamus.

Comes now the respondent Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, a corporation, and for answer to the petition for mandamus heretofore filed in this cause, and by way of return to the rule issued thereon by Hon. T. B. Fraser, Associate Justice, respectfully says:

I. Admits the allegations of paragraph I of said petition.

II. Admits the allegations of paragraph II of said petition in so far as they relate to this respondent.

III. Admits the allegations of paragraph III of said petition in so far as they relate to this respondent.

IV. This respondent admits that on February 23, 1924, the petitioners, after a hearing, issued their order No. 276, as alleged in paragraph IV of said petition, but denies that the connecting track therein ordered to be constructed and maintained is required by law, and alleges that at such hearing no reasonable public demand or necessity was shown requiring respondents to construct or maintain said connecting track.

V. This respondent admits the allegations of paragraph V of said petition, in so far as they relate to this respondent and craves reference to the other allegations of this return and answer showing that respondent's refusal is lawful.

VI. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph VI of said petition, and therefore denies the same.

VII. Upon information and belief denies all allegations of said petition not herein specifically admitted.

VIII. This respondent further avers that the evidence introduced at the hearing held by the petitioners as alleged in paragraph IV of said petition failed to establish any public necessity for the construction and operation of the connecting track required by order No. 276 issued by said petitioners, but, on the contrary, showed, and this respondent avers that such construction and operation would be unreasonable and unnecessary, and that the facilities of this respondent and of other carriers are sufficient to afford proper and reasonable transportation service to the shippers and community which would be served by the connecting track ordered to be constructed, and in that the revenue to be derived from the operation of such connecting track would be grossly inadequate to compensate this respondent for the cost of its construction.

IX. Further answering, this respondent avers that it is a common carrier by railroad, engaged in the transportation of persons and property in interstate commerce, and, as such, is subject to the Act of Congress approved February 4, 1887, entitled "An act to regulate commerce" as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Interstate Commerce Act; that paragraphs 10, 11, and 14 of section 1 of said Interstate Commerce Act require every common carrier subject thereto to furnish safe and adequate car service, defining "car service" to include the use, control, supply, movement, distribution, exchange, interchange, and return of locomotives, cars, and other vehicles used in the transportation of property, and authorize the Interstate Commerce Commission to prescribe reasonable rules, regulations and practices with respect to such car service.

That paragraph 4 of section 1 of said Interstate Commerce Act requires every common carrier subject thereto to establish through routes, and reasonable facilities for operating through routes.

That under the provisions of paragraph 18 of section 1 of said Interstate Commerce Act every common carrier subject thereto is prohibited from undertaking any extension of its line, or construction of a new line, unless and until it has obtained from the Interstate Commerce Commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require the construction and operation of such additional or...