Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co v. Commerce Commission Ex Rel. Hoopeston Grain & Coal Co.

173 N.E. 380, 341 Ill. 277
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 25, 1930
DocketNo. 19842. Reversed and remanded.
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 173 N.E. 380 (Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co v. Commerce Commission Ex Rel. Hoopeston Grain & Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Co v. Commerce Commission Ex Rel. Hoopeston Grain & Coal Co., 173 N.E. 380, 341 Ill. 277 (Ill. 1930).

Opinions

The Hoopeston Grain and Coal Company and other retail dealers in coal at Hoopeston, Illinois, filed complaints before the Illinois Commerce Commission praying reductions in coal rates charged by the Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railway Company and other carriers, defendants, and also praying reparation for alleged overcharges already collected. The substance of the complaints was that the rates maintained by the defendants were excessive and unreasonable and unjustly discriminatory against complainants and their traffic as compared with allegedly preferential rates applied to the transportation of coal from points of origin in the same territory to other destinations. The points of origin dealt with in the complaints and the order of the commission may be designated as the Danville group, the Springfield group, the Southern Illinois group and the Indiana group. Reductions were ordered as to the Danville, Springfield and Southern Illinois groups, the rates prescribed per ton between such groups and Hoopeston being 80, 135 and 165 cents, respectively. Reparation was also *Page 279 provided for. The order was affirmed by the circuit court of Vermilion county, and the cause is here on appeal from the judgment of that court.

The commission's order is challenged at the outset on the ground that it does not contain sufficiently specific findings of fact to enable the court to review the commission's action. It is true that the commission must make findings of fact upon the principal issues in the case, and if such findings are lacking the order is ineffective. (Chicago Railways Co. v.Commerce Com. 336 Ill. 51; Business Men's Ass'n v. CommerceCom. 337 id. 149; Brotherhood Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. New York Central Railroad Co. 339 id. 201.) In order that the courts may intelligently review the decisions of the commission the latter must make its findings sufficiently specific to enable the courts to determine whether such decisions are based on such findings. (Business Men's Ass'n v.Commerce Com. supra.) An objection similar to that raised here was made in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. 236 U.S. 412, where the court said: "Upon examining the reports as set forth in the record we think they contain findings of fact which meet the requirements of the statute, and that the facts stated in the findings, if taken as prima facie true, sustain the award of the commission. True, the findings in the original report are interwoven with other matter and are not expressed in the terms which courts generally employ in special findings of fact, but there is no difficulty in separating the findings from the other matter or in fully understanding them." Apart from the fact that, in some connections, there is difficulty in the within case in separating the findings from other matter, the conclusion thus expressed is fairly applicable to the present record.

The commission may be held to have found, therefore, that Hoopeston is situated at the eastern boundary of the State of Illinois, approximately 100 miles south of Chicago and 24 miles north of Danville; that it is located on the *Page 280 main line of the Chicago and Eastern Illinois railway between Evansville, Indiana, and Chicago, and on the east and west line of the New York, Chicago and St. Louis railroad between Peoria, Illinois, and Frankfort, Indiana; that on December 1, 1916, the rate from the Danville group to Hoopeston was 60 cents; that on July 1, 1922, this rate became 136 cents; that on December 1, 1916, the rate from the Springfield group to Hoopeston was 82 cents; that on July 1, 1922, this rate became 165 cents; that on December 1, 1916, the rate from the Southern Illinois group to Hoopeston was 102 cents; that on July 1, 1922, this rate became 192 cents; that on December 1, 1916, the rate from the Indiana group to Hoopeston was 77 cents; that this rate subsequently became 138 cents; that the percentage of increase in rates was thus 127 per cent in the case of the Danville group, 101 per cent in the case of the Springfield group, 88 per cent in the case of the Southern Illinois group and 91 per cent in the case of the Indiana group, and that freight rates generally in the State of Illinois during the same period increased approximately 65 1/2 per cent. The order sets out a table indicating that there was a disagreement between the parties as to the average distance between Westville, in the Danville group, and Hoopeston, complainants alleging it to be 33 miles whereas appellants claimed that it was 46 miles, the extra mileage claimed by appellants including yard movements found by the commission to be for the operating convenience of the carrier. The average distance between other points in the Danville group and Hoopeston was found to be 32 miles, between the Springfield group and Hoopeston 143 miles, and between the Southern Illinois group and Hoopeston 231 miles. The average distance from the Indiana group to Hoopeston was found to be approximately 70 miles, and it was found that the rates from Humrick, Illinois, 45 miles distant from Hoopeston, were the same as from the Indiana group except to points in Indiana for intrastate hauls of less than *Page 281 50 miles. The order sets out a table of rate comparisons, giving average distances in miles between the Danville group and Chicago, the Springfield group and Chicago, the Southern Illinois group and Chicago, the Indiana group and Chicago, Farmington and Cuba, Illinois, and Galesburg, Illinois, Evansville, Indiana, and Hoopeston, Evansville and Indianapolis, Indiana, as well as average distances in miles between various other places, and showing in each instance the existing rates. In commenting upon this table the order states:

"It will be observed that comparison is made of the rates here assailed with the rates maintained from the same origin groups to Chicago, Illinois, Hoopeston being intermediate between the mines and Chicago. Defendants contend there are certain conditions that tend to keep the rates for the transportation of coal to Chicago, Illinois, at or below a reasonable maximum level. * * * The record discloses that during 1923 there were transported to the Chicago district 17,000,000 tons of coal from mines in Illinois, Indiana and Western Kentucky, 12,000,000 tons of eastern coal by rail carriers and 1,250,000 tons of eastern coal via the Great Lakes, the total movement being 30,250,000 tons. The defendants estimate the annual movement of coal to Hoopeston, Illinois, to be not more than 10,000 tons, therefore the preponderance of the coal movement to the Chicago district is readily apparent. Defendants direct attention to the fact that during 1923 1,250,000 tons of eastern coal were transported to the Chicago district via the Great Lakes while none of the coal transported to Hoopeston is handled by water carriers. Defendants also contend that, aside from the water competition encountered by the rail carriers in the movement of coal to the Chicago district, the rail carriers' competition is more keen at Chicago than at Hoopeston, because some of the railroads directly serving the eastern coal fields reach the Chicago district with their own rails, while none of the carriers directly serving *Page 282 Hoopeston, Illinois, reach the eastern coal fields with their own rails.

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

Related

Knox Motor Service, Inc. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
396 N.E.2d 280 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979)
Hazelton v. Zoning Board of Appeals
363 N.E.2d 44 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
Horth v. Board of Education of School District No. 205
191 N.E.2d 601 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1963)
Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
98 N.W.2d 60 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1959)
Village of Justice v. Jamieson
129 N.E.2d 269 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1955)
Antioch Milling Co. v. Public Service Co.
123 N.E.2d 302 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)
Flick v. Gately
65 N.E.2d 137 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1946)
Lowden v. Illinois Commerce Commission
33 N.E.2d 430 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1941)
Rockwell Lime Co. v. Commerce Commission
26 N.E.2d 99 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1940)
Chicago District Pipeline Co. v. Illinois Commerce Commission
197 N.E. 873 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)
I. C. R. R. Co. v. Commerce Com.
195 N.E. 32 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)
Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois Commerce Commission
359 Ill. 563 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1935)
City of Chicago v. Illinois Commerce Commission
190 N.E. 896 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 N.E. 380, 341 Ill. 277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-eastern-illinois-railway-co-v-commerce-commission-ex-rel-ill-1930.