Terre Haute & I.R. Co. v. Peoria & P.U.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1897
• Citation: 82 F. 943
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Parties: TERRE HAUTE & I.R. CO. v. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO.

82 F. 943

TERRE HAUTE & I.R. CO. v. PEORIA & P.U.R. CO.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois, Southern Division.

November 8, 1897

J. G Williams, W. J. Calhoun, and W. J. Lyford, for complainant.

Stevens Horton & Abbott, for defendant.

GROSSCUP District Judge.

The motion is for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding at law in the circuit court of Peoria county upon certain bond made by the complainant and its sureties to the defendant. The facts essential to the disposition of the motion may be stated as follows: The complainant, the Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad Company, is lessee of a railroad organized under the laws of Illinois, and known as the Terre Haute & Peoria Railroad Company. This last company purchased its road at a receiver's sale in 1887, the road before that time being the property of the Illinois & Midland Railroad Company, running from a point on the Toledo &amp Western Railroad, four miles east of Peoria, to a point near Terre Haute. During the period that the Illinois & Midland Railroad Company was in the hands of the court, its receiver Louis Genis, made a contract with the Peoria & Pekin Union Railroad Company, the defendant here, whereby the Midland road was given the use of terminal facilities in and near Peoria at a rental of $13,000 per year. In view of the contemplated sale of the road on the then pending foreclosure proceedings, in aid of which the receiver had been appointed, the contract provided that the purchaser or the owner of the property might, at the termination of the receivership, extend the contract for the full period of 50 years from February 1, 1881. The complainant, as lessee of the Terre Haute & Peoria Railroad Company, purchaser at the foreclosure sale, went into possession of the road some time in 1892, and in connection therewith used the defendant's tracks and terminal facilities. Differences having arisen between the two companies over the interpretation of the contract, the defendant claimed rental at the rate of $22,000 per year,-- a sum obtained from certain other roads using the terminal,-- while the complainant offered and paid at the rate of $13,000 per year. It is understood that the lesser amount should be currently paid, but that its payment and acceptance should not prejudice the rights of either party in any adjudication upon the controversy between them. In 1894 the defendant served notice upon the complainant that, unless the rentals were to be paid at the rate of $22,500 per year from the date of the company's possession, in 1892, the complainant would be excluded from the use of the tracks and the terminal facilities; whereupon the complainant filed its bill in equity in the circuit court of Peoria county for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding to execute its threats of exclusion. A temporary restraining order having been made ex parte, the same was, upon the motion and full hearing, dissolved, but the court, upon application of the complainant, under the practice provided by the statutes of this state, continued the injunction in force pending the appeal, upon the complainant's executing its bond, with surety, for the payment of all back rentals at the rate of $22,500 per year, in case its judgment was affirmed. This bond also contained the usual provisions for the payment of all damages. The judgment was affirmed by the appellate court (61 Ill.App. 405), whereupon, upon application to a justice of the supreme court, the injunction was again continued in force, pending an appeal, upon the execution of a bond of like tenor as the first. On the hearing in the supreme court the judgment of the circuit court, together with that of the appellate court, was affirmed. The successful party, the Peoria & Pekin Union Railroad Company, thereupon began suits on each of these stay bonds in the circuit court of Peoria county, and it is to restrain the further prosecution of these suits that the present bill is filed.

It seems that the bill for an injunction filed in the circuit court of Peoria county, and reviewed by the appellate and supreme courts, was framed upon the theory that the Peoria &amp Pekin Union Railroad Company was a union depot company, under the laws of Illinois. In such event, the Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railroad Company would, independently of any rights obtained under the contract between the receiver, Genis, and the Peoria & Pekin Union Railroad Company, have been entitled to the use of the terminals at a reasonable rental. Each of the state courts through which the case passed, however, found that the Peoria & Pekin Union Railroad Company was not a union depot company under the laws of Illinois, and it was upon this finding that the original injunction was dissolved, and the contention of the Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railroad Company defeated. But the supreme court of the state, in its written opinion, took occasion to refer to the contract between Genis and the Peoria & Pekin Railroad Company, and the relation of the Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railroad Company, as successor to Genis, under such contract, and in so doing intimated, at least, that the Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railroad Company was entitled, under such contract, to the use of the tracks and terminal facilities at the rate of $13,000 per year. It is averred in the bill before me that the Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railroad Company, in the bill originally filed in the state court, predicated its right to the use of these terminals at the rate of $13,000 per year upon the contract, as well as upon the law relating to the union depot companies. The supreme court, however, could not have so understood the bill, for it could not, on such a case, in holding the views expressed in its opinion respecting the rights of the Indianapolis & Terre Haute Railroad Company under the contract, have affirmed the judgments below. It is insisted by the Peoria & Pekin Railroad Company, on the...