Chicago, B. & QR Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission

82 F. Supp. 368, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1717
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedJanuary 6, 1949
Docket48C849
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 82 F. Supp. 368 (Chicago, B. & QR Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago, B. & QR Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 82 F. Supp. 368, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1717 (N.D. Ill. 1949).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

(1) Plaintiff is now, and for many years last past has been, an Illinois railroad cor *370 poration 'engaged in transporting freight and passengers as a common carrier by-railroad between points within the State of Illinois as well as between Illinois points and points in other states, with its principal place of business at 547 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago', Illinois.

(2) Defendant Illinois Commerce Commission is an administrative body created foy the Illinois Legislature to administer the Illinois Public Utilities Act, Ill.Rev. Stat.1947, e. 111%, § 1 et seq., and said Commission has offices in both Springfield and Chicago, Illinois.

(3) Defendants, John D. Biggs, William Parillo, Edwin A. Rosenstone, Frank Pes-ka, ánd Val J. Washington are now, and for many years last past have been, the duly appointed, qualified and acting members of the Illinois Commerce Commission, and said defendants are citizens 'and residents of the State of Illinois.

(4) Defendant George F. Barrett is an Illinois citizen and a resident -of the Eastern Division of the Northern Illinois District and is the duly elected, qualified and acting Illinois Attorney General. Defendant Barrett appeared herein on behalf of himself, :as well as on behalf oif each of the ¡foregoing defendants, and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, an answer to said complaint, and participated in the trial on November 5, 1948.

(5) Plaintiff herein seeks a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining the defendants and each of them from enforcing the remedies by a penalty and otherwise, provided in the Illinois Public Utilities Act for plaintiff’s failure to reinstate its trains 51 and 52 pursuant to the requirements of Section 49a of the Illinois Public Utilities Act and said Commission’s order 'in its Docket 36251, on the ground that said statute and order violate plaintiff’s rights under the Federal Constitution; also on the ground that said Commission’s refusal to postpone the effective date of -its order in Docket 36251 pending judicial review thereof violated plaintiff’s right under the Federal Constitution; also on the ground that said Commission had for more than 7 years last past, and up to the date of the trial herein on November 5, 1948, pursued an ¡illegal -custom ■and practice of conducting sham hearings in train discontinuance ¡cases whereby said hearings were deliberately and unnecessarily continued and protracted ¡for many months, thereby dissipating plaintiff’s ¡public utility assets in violation of plaintiff’s rights under the Federal Constitution.

(6) Subsequent to the ¡taking of evidence on plaintiff’s motion for temporary injunction at the hearing -on November 5, 1948, the parties filed a stipulation on December 23, 1948, wherein -it was -agreed that the pleadings, testimony, exhibits ¡and briefs theretofore submitted on the motion for temporary injunction might be treated by the -court as the pleadings, testimony, exhibits and bri-ef-s for the ¡purpose of deciding plaintiff’s motion ¡for a permanent ■injunction.

(7) The amount of the controversy involved herein exceeds the sum or value of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs.

(8) Plaintiff operates approximately 8,-867 miles of intrastate and interstate railroad extending from Chicago, Illinois, to St. Paul, Minnesota; from Chicago, Illinois, to Billings, Montana, via Omaha, Nebraska, and Denver, Colorado; from Chicago, Illinois, to Kansas City, Missouri; ■and from Chicago, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, including a 323-mile line of interstate railroad extending from St. Louis, Missouri, to Savanna, Illinois, a 35-mile segment of which lies within the State of Iowa between the cities of Davenport and Clinton.

.. (9) For many years prior to March 21, 1948, plaintiff operated, daily, its passenger trains 47 and 51 northbound from St. Louis, Missouri, to Savanna, Illinois, and its trains 48 and 52 southbound from Savanna, Illinois, to St. Louis, Missouri, over said 323-mile segment of railroad. Nos. 47 and 48 were and are day trains, and Nos. 51 and 52 were night trains.

(10) The time usually required for each ■train to make the 323-mile trip from St. Louis, Missouri, to Savanna, Illinois, was approximately 14 hours. Plaintiff was and is required continuously to employ a locomotive engineer, fireman, conductor, brake *371 man, and baggageman on each of said trains at all times. A total of 12 employes was and -is required to make each daily train trip. The locomotive engineer and fireman receive a day’s pay for 8 hours’ work or 100 miles whichever comes first. The conductor, brakeman and baggageman receive a day’s pay for 8 hours’ work or 150 miles whichever comes first. If the daily trip made by each train could be reduced to one hour’s running time, plaintiff would still be required to pay said employes the same amounts presently paid for the 14-hour run, viz., 3.3 days’ pay each to the engineer and fireman, and 2.25 days’ pay each to the conductor and brakeman and baggageman.

(11) During January, 1948, the operation of trains 47, 48, 51 and 52 between St. Louis, Missouri, and Savanna, Illinois, involved a total out-of-pocket loss to plaintiff at the rate of approximately $286,000 annually ; and said trains’ operations involved a total loss during the year ending January 31, 1948, including both direct and indirect expenses, of approximately $596,413 'annually.

(12) During four representative months of 1947 together with January, 1948, plaintiff sustained a net loss, in connection with the operation of trains 51 and 52 including both direct (out-of-pocket) and indirect expenses, properly attributable to the operation of said trains, at the rate of $296,282 annually.

(13) As shown by its annual reports to the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Illinois Commerce Commission for the year 1947, plaintiff sustained an annual loss from its system-wide passenger train operations of $10,293,251, and an annual loss from its Illinois passenger train operations of $3,059,866.

(14) On March 18, 1948, the Office of Defense Transportation issued General Order 69 directing that plaintiff reduce its coal-burning locomotive mileage by 25% on account of the nationwide coal strike. In compliance therewith, plaintiff discontinued, among others, the operation of its trains 51 and 52 on March 21, 1948, and transferred to plaintiff’s trains 47 and 48 the passenger, mail, express and other services previously performed by its discontinued trains 51 and 52.

(15) On April 8, 1948, while said Order 69 was in full force and effect, plaintiff filed an application with the Illinois Commerce Commission in Docket 36185 wherein plaintiff sought temporary authority to discontinue trains 51 and 52 as well as permanent authority to abandon the operation of said trains.

(16) Said Commission set plaintiff’s application to discontinue and abandon said trains for hearing at Springfield, Illinois, on April 20, 1948, and, when plaintiff appeared and attempted to offer proof in support of its application in Docket 36185, said Commission, acting through Defendants John D. Biggs, William Parillo, Frank Peska, Edwin A. Rosenstone, and Val J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thompson v. Heineman
Nebraska Supreme Court, 2015
Perez v. Lavine
378 F. Supp. 1390 (S.D. New York, 1974)
City of Newton v. Department of Public Utilities
160 N.E.2d 108 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1959)
Western Maryland Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission
106 S.E.2d 923 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1959)
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. Save the Trains Ass'n
91 N.W.2d 312 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1958)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. State Corp. Commission
322 P.2d 715 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1958)
Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission
45 N.W.2d 520 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1951)
C. & NWR CO. v. Pub. Serv. Comm.
45 N.W.2d 520 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1951)
Fleming v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Clinchfield Railroad
61 S.E.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1950)
Southern Ry. Co. v. Alabama Public Service Commission
91 F. Supp. 980 (M.D. Alabama, 1950)
Ann Arbor R. v. Michigan Public Service Commission
91 F. Supp. 668 (E.D. Michigan, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 F. Supp. 368, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-b-qr-co-v-illinois-commerce-commission-ilnd-1949.