Southern Ry. Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
Decision Date | 09 October 1941 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 28. |
Citation | 4 So.2d 400,241 Ala. 691 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1941.
J. T. Stokely, of Birmingham, S. A. Lynne, of Decatur, A. H. Carmichael, of Tuscumbia, Wert & Hutson of Decatur, and S. R. Prince, Jr., and Sidney S. Alderman both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Chas. H. Eyster, of Decatur, Robt. E. Steiner, Jr. of Montgomery, and Edw. S. Jouett and J. H. McChord, both of Louisville, Ky., for appellee.
This appeal is from an interlocutory decree sustaining the complainant's demurrer to the respondent's amended statutory cross-bill.
The original bill was filed April 17, 1937, under the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1935, Acts 1935, p. 777, Code 1940, Tit. 7 §§ 156-168, seeking a decretal declaration that it is entitled to a reduction of the "rent basis" provided in the contract entered into by the predecessors in title and right of the parties July 25, 1889, for the construction, maintenance and use of the "Gurnee Junction-Blocton Line" of railway, without the payment of "retirement losses."
The respondent, by answer and cross-bill, denies such right and asserts that the payment of retirement losses on a basis of wheelage is a prerequisite to complainant's right to a reduction of the rent basis as a consequence of the abandonment and junking of parts of said system.
The rent basis for the use of said system by the complainant is fixed by the contract at one-half of the capital cost of construction on which complainant and its predecessor in right payed a rental of 5% per annum. Capital losses, as applied to the parts of the system abandoned and junked, were the costs of construction less the junk value of the salvaged material. "Wheelage basis" as used in the contract is the comparative use by the respective parties of said line in the operation of their respective trains.
The assignments of error present the question of the sufficiency of the averments of the cross-bill, to warrant a decretal declaration that the complainant, under the contract of July 25, 1889, is obligated to pay to the respondent, appellant here, a portion of the "retirement loss," on a basis of wheelage, as a prerequisite to complainant's right to claim a reduction of the "rent basis."
The allegations of the original bill admitted by the answer, and cross-bill, will be read into the cross-bill and considered along with the affirmative allegations of the cross-bill made as a basis for such relief, and doubtful intendments will be resolved against the pleader. Donald v. Reynolds, 228 Ala. 513, 154 So. 530; Ashurst et al. v. Ashurst, 175 Ala. 667, 57 So. 442; Blount County Bank et al. v. Harvey, 215 Ala. 566, 112 So. 139; Kelen v. Brewer et al., 221 Ala. 445, 129 So. 23; Scharfenburg v. Town of New Decatur, 155 Ala. 651, 47 So. 95.
So considered, in the light of judicial knowledge, the cross-bill in short alleges that the contract was entered into on July 25, 1889, by and between the Brierfield, Blocton & Birmingham Railway Company, the predecessor in right and title of the appellant, and the Birmingham Mineral Railway Company, the predecessor in right of the appellee, the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company.
The immediate predecessor of appellant was the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company. The subject matter of the contract was the construction, maintenance and use of a railway line through the coal fields between what became to be known as Gurnee Junction and Blocton, Alabama, and after its construction was known as the "Gurnee Junction-Blocton Line."
The construction of the line was commenced by the Brierfield Company, was completed by the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company, at capital costs, in round numbers of $502,000, and after appellant succeeded to the right and full ownership from its predecessor in title, it constructed additional branches, spur tracks and facilities for reaching and handling the coal output of the mines developed in the area, increasing the capital investment to approximately one million dollars.
The contract stipulated that the owner should operate and control said line by its own agents and servants, whose selection should be satisfactory to the Birmingham Mineral Railroad Company, and said Birmingham Mineral Railroad Company should have the joint use of said line for the operation of its trains in hauling the coal and other freight along the same. For this use it agreed to pay "as and for an agreed rent, a sum equal to 5 per cent (5%) per annum" of one-half of said total cost.
It was further stipulated in paragraph "4" of the contract: "It is agreed that the costs of renewals, repairs and maintenance, including taxes and any other charges of or pertaining to said portion of said railroad, and sidings, spur tracks, and appurtenances, is to be borne by the parties hereto on the basis of wheelage, and the Birmingham Mineral Railroad Company agrees that it will, during the continuance of this contract, pay over to the Brierfield, Blocton & Birmingham Railway Company in monthly installments its full proportion of said cost when divided between the parties hereto upon the said basis of wheelage." [Italics supplied.]
In the beginning of its use by the Birmingham Mineral Railroad Company, it paid rent, therefor, on the ascertained basis of the original capital investment, $502,000, and when the capital investment was increased by the construction of the additional branches, spurs and facilities, the rent basis was increased to approximately one million dollars, and complainant and its predecessor in right paid rent on this increased basis.
The complainant and its predecessor in right has never claimed or had possession or control of said line, but has had the use thereof jointly with the owner in consideration of rent paid annually, and maintenance cost, paid monthly, each of the parties operating their own trains by their own employees, under the superintendence and control of the owner's employees.
The term of the contract is for 99 years, and the parties have been operating thereunder beginning in the year, 1890, for a period of 47 years before the bill in this case was filed, April 17, 1937.
The cross-bill alleges: [Italics supplied.]
The cross-bill, in paragraph 5, alleges: [Italics supplied.]
The allegations of the cross-bill referred to in the answer and relied on in the cross-bill to support the conclusion of the pleader as establishing a uniform practice of adjustment of accounts between the parties, through their respective accounting departments, involving numerous items, including items of "retirement losses," are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...should be ascribed to the contract language, Babcock v. Smith, 1970, 285 Ala. 557, 234 So.2d 573; Southern Railway Company v. Louisville & Nashville R. Company, 1941, 241 Ala. 691, 4 So.2d 400; Twin Tree Lumber Company v. Ensign, 1915, 193 Ala. 113, 69 So. Ethridge seeks to avoid the 22 wee......
-
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE R. CO. v. Arrow Transp. Co.
...So. 479; Evans v. Swaim, 245 Ala. 641, 18 So.2d 400; McCluskey v. Steele, 18 Ala.App. 31, 88 So. 367. 4 Southern Ry. Co. v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 241 Ala. 691, 4 So.2d 400. 5 Thompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U.S. 134, 140, 66 S.Ct. 937, 90 L.Ed. 6 Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Chic......
-
Pharmacia Corp. v. Suggs
...action renders moot declaratory-judgment action to decide duty-to-indemnify question); and Southern Ry. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 241 Ala. 691, 4 So.2d 400 (1941) (settlement of claim is conclusive of all elements of claim except those specifically reserved by Mootness is a time dimension o......
-
David Lee Boykin Family Trust v. Boykin
...and the right [of use] is terminable ... at the will of both parties upon notice." 597 F.2d at 473. In Southern Ry. v. Louisville & N. R.R., 241 Ala. 691, 698, 4 So.2d 400, 406 (1941), the Alabama Supreme Court, commenting on the grant by one railway company to another railway company of th......