Southern Ry. Co. v. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
| Decision Date | 08 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ. 645-N.,Civ. 645-N. |
| Citation | 88 F. Supp. 441 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
J. T. Stokely (of Benners, Burr, Stokely & McKamy), of Birmingham, Charles Clark, of Washington, D. C, and Marion Rushton (of Rushton, Stakely & Johnston), Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff.
Richard T. Rives (of Rives & Godbold), Montgomery, Ala., and A. A. Carmichael, Attorney General of Alabama, for defendants.
Before McCORD, Circuit Judge, and McDUFFIE and KENNAMER, District Judges.
Plaintiff, Southern Railway Company, a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, is engaged as a common carrier by railroad of persons and property between points within the State of Alabama, and between points in other States throughout the south.
The defendant Alabama Public Service Commission, is an Administrative body, created under the laws of the State of Alabama, and authorized to exercise certain regulatory powers over the plaintiff and other common carriers by railroad within the State of Alabama. Title 48, Section 1, and Section 106, Code of Alabama 1940.
Plaintiff Railway, by complaint as amended, petitions this court for injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants, their agents, etc., from proceeding against the plaintiff, its officers, etc., to enforce any penalties or other remedies provided by the laws of the State of Alabama, by reason of plaintiff's failure to restore the operation of Trains Nos. 11 and 16, as required by order of the defendant Commission of December 5, 1949, and as is inherent in the Commission's report and order of January 9, 1950.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint as amended; a motion to stay the proceedings in this court; and, without waiving any of these motions or the grounds thereof, an answer to the bill of complaint as amended.
The court heard this cause, by consent of the parties plaintiff and defendants, on the defendant's motion to dismiss, motion to stay the cause in this court, and on plantiff's application for a temporary and permanent injunction, and on the merits of the bill and answer.
After the court announced the cause would be so heard, the respective parties offered evidence, and at the conclusion of the taking of the evidence, oral arguments were heard by the court and permission was given the parties to file written briefs with the court within fifteen days, and the cause was taken under advisement by the court.
Questions to be Determined by the Court.
The main question raised by the motions to dismiss and stay, is, whether this court should entertain this action at this time, irrespective of the impact the orders of the Commission had on the plaintiff, or in spite of their questionable constitutionality.
The main question presented to this court by the bill and answer is, whether the orders of the defendant Commission of December 5, 1949 and January 9, 1950, is a violation of due process of law, as provided for by the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution, and will result in an illegal confiscation of the plaintiff's property.
1. Plaintiff Railway is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, is engaged as a common carrier by railroad of persons and property between points within the State of Alabama, and between points in other States throughout the south.
2. The jurisdictional amount of three thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, is involved. The bill of complaint, as amended, contains allegations of denial of due process of law, as provided for by the 14th amendment to the Federal Constitution. The parties are properly before the court and this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues involved. No suit is pending at this time in any of the courts of the State of Alabama between the parties to this litigation, therefore, the rule of comity is not applicable.
3. Plaintiff Railway did, on September 13, 1948, file an application with the defendant Commission for authority to discontinue operation in Alabama of Trains Nos. 11 and 16, as required by Sections 35 and 106 of the Code of Alabama, Title 48.
4. Plaintiff Railway did, on October 25, 1949, and in compliance with an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission made to effectuate a saving in the use of coal, discontinue operation of passenger Trains Nos. 11 and 16.
5. Plaintiff Railway did, on November 10, 1949, file a supplemental petition with the defendant Commission for authority to be relieved of the necessity of restoring to operation Trains 11 and 16 within the State of Alabama.
6. The Interstate Commerce Commission did, on November 14, 1949, issue an order vacating and setting aside the order under which plaintiff Railway had, on October 25, 1949, discontinued operation of Trains 11 and 16.
7. Plaintiff Railway did, on numerous occasions, after the filing of the original application with the defendant Commission, and after the filing of the supplemental petition, make requests to the Commission for an opportunity to be heard on the original application and the supplemental petition, but were denied such a hearing by the Commission; the Commission stating that no such hearing would be held until the trains had first been restored to service.
8. The defendant Commission did, on December 5, 1949, enter an order requiring the plaintiff to restore Trains 11 and 16 to service, and calling plaintiff's attention to certain statutory penalties made and provided for in the event of a refusal.
9. Plaintiff Railway did, on December 6, 1949, file in this court, a bill for a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the order of December 5, 1949 by the Commission. A temporary restraining order was granted by the judge of this court and the hearing on the bill for a temporary and permanent injunction was set for hearing before a three judge court for December 15, 1949, which hearing, at the request and consent of the defendants, filed in this court on December 14, 1949, was passed until the 9th day of January, 1950, and later, at their request and consent, to the 12th day of January, 1950.
10. The defendant Commission did, on December 8, 1949, hold a hearing at the Court House at Fayette, Alabama, at which time the plaintiff Railway was given an opportunity, and did, present evidence and argument in support of the original application and supplemental petition.
11. The defendant Commission did, on January 9, 1950, make and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...to, or involving the subject matter of, this litigation, we hold that rules of comity are inapplicable. Southern Railway Co. v. Alabama Public Service Comm., D.C.1950, 88 F.Supp. 441. There is ample authority to the effect that if questions of novel, ambiguous or undecided State law are inv......
-
Ann Arbor R. Co. v. MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...675; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission et al., D.C. Ill., 82 F. Supp. 368; Southern Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission et al., D.C.Ala., 88 F.Supp. 441. Since the year 1895, with the exception of the period from 1931 to 1943 when the properties of the plainti......
-
Louisville & NR Co. v. ALABAMA PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...recently before this court involving similar facts and presenting the same points of law. Southern Railway Company, a corporation, v. Alabama Public Service Commission et al., D.C., 88 F.Supp. 441; Southern Railway Company, a corporation, v. Alabama Public Service Commission et al., D.C., 9......
-
ALABAMA COMM'N V. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
...FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Decided upon the authority of Alabama Public Service Comm'n v. Southern R. Co., ante P. 341. 88 F.Supp. 441, In a suit by a railroad, a three-judge federal district court enjoined enforcement of an order of the Alabama Public Service Commission. 8......