Commerce Commission Ex Rel. Brown Shoe Co. v. Illinois Traction, Inc.

167 N.E. 38, 335 Ill. 247
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJune 19, 1929
DocketNos. 18866, 18867, 18868. Reversed and remanded.
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 167 N.E. 38 (Commerce Commission Ex Rel. Brown Shoe Co. v. Illinois Traction, Inc.) 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
Commerce Commission Ex Rel. Brown Shoe Co. v. Illinois Traction, Inc., 167 N.E. 38, 335 Ill. 247 (Ill. 1929).

Opinions

The proceedings out of which these appeals arise were brought before the Illinois Commerce Commission on a joint complaint of the Brown Shoe Company and the Litchfield Creamery Company against the Illinois Traction, Inc., and on two complaints of the Buscher Ice and Coal Company against the Wabash Railway Company and the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, (referred to hereafter as the Big Four,) for the reduction of freight rates on coal. The complaints were made the subject of investigation by the commission on a single record, with a stipulation that evidence by parties to any of the complaints might be considered in any of the cases to which it was applicable, on the consoslidated record. In the Wabash and Big Four cases the commission made a single order covering both complaints but made a separate order in the Illinois Traction case. By the terms of the commission's orders the carriers were required to publish and put *Page 249 in effect, on or before March 11, 1927, reductions in their individual rates per ton for the haulage of bituminous coal from Illinois points to Litchfield, Illinois, as follows:

========================================================================
From        Distance                  Change in Rate            Railroad
                                          from
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillespie   23 miles                   91c to 60c      Illinois Traction
Mt. Olive    9 "                       88c to 55c      Wabash
Mt. Olive                On screenings 70c to 55c      Wabash
Hillsboro   13 "                       91c to 55c      Big Four
Gillespie   10 "                       10c to 55c      Big Four
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On appeal by respondents to the circuit court of Macoupin county the orders of the commission were approved, and these further appeals are prosecuted.

The evidence in support of the ninety-one cent rate is, that it is substantially in harmony with other group rates on roads in this State. The history of the rate between the points now in question is: The first rate, effective October 1, 1915, was thirty cents from Gillespie and Hillsboro to Litchfield. A slight change was made on April 24, 1917. The rates were increased fifteen cents a ton on October 16, 1917, and on June 25, 1918, they were increased fifteen cents, and under the disposition of the fractions the rate became sixty cents from both points on October 5, 1918. The re-adjustment was made under freight rate authority No. 220 of the United States Railroad Administration, and the rate became sixty cents and sixty-nine cents from Gillespie and Hillsboro, respectively. On December 10, 1919, the rate became seventy-two and five-tenths cents and was fixed by the United States Railroad Administration. The seventy-two and five-tenths cent rate was a group rate applying from mines on the various railroads serving Litchfield, such as the Illinois Central, the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, the Wabash and the Big Four. On February 19, 1921, the rates were increased forty per cent, and on July 1, 1922, reduced ten per cent, resulting in a rate of ninety-one cents, the present rate. *Page 250 The present rate of ninety-one cents in effect on the Big Four and the Traction Lines to Litchfield applies as a group rate from various mines in the vicinity of Litchfield. The group includes, in addition to mines at Gillespie and Hillsboro, others located on the Big Four, Illinois Central, the Burlington, the Chicago and Eastern Illinois, and lines similarly situated. The rate of the other carriers will not be affected by the commission's orders in these cases, and those lines will continue to apply the ninety-one cent rate for a service similar to that for which the orders in question limit appellants' compensation to fifty-five cents in one case and sixty cents in the other.

The burden of proof was on the petitioners to show that the rates of which they complain are unreasonable. (Commerce Com. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Co.320 Ill. 214; Public Utilities Com. v. Atchison, Topeka and SantaFe Railway Co. 278 id. 58.) The legislature has provided for review of the decisions of the Commerce Commission upon all matters committed to it in the regulation of rates by common carriers. There should be ascribed to its decisions the strength due to the judgment of a tribunal appointed by law and informed by experience. Where the facts are controverted and the decision depends upon credit to be given contradictory testimony the courts will give great weight to the finding of the commission, which is qualified by experience and special study to weigh the facts and circumstances applicable to cases within its jurisdiction. It is the duty of the courts to weigh and consider the evidence, and if it is found that the order of the commission is without substantial foundation in the evidence it should be set aside, (Commerce Com. v. Cleveland,Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Co. 309 Ill. 165,) although there may be some evidence in the record which, if uncontradicted, would support the order. Choate v. CommerceCom. 309 Ill. 248. *Page 251

The evidence in support of the orders consists of the testimony of the owners, operators and employees of the plants of the petitioners as to the operation of the plants, their location, the quantities of coal consumed and the source of their coal supply. None of them testified to any fact tending to prove that the rates complained of are excessive. The only testimony in the record tending to prove the alleged unreasonableness of the rates was that of J.H. Kane, the attorney who filed the petition on behalf of the petitioners. The evidence as to the reasonableness of the rates consists of the testimony of officers of the respondents and of qualified experts in traffic rates. One testifying as an expert must show that he is qualified by knowledge and experience to testify to the matters concerning which his testimony is given. There is nothing in the evidence showing that by experience or otherwise Kane is qualified to testify to those matters. The record shows that comparative rates between points in Indiana, Michigan and Missouri were testified to by the witness by reference to decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission or other commissions, but the relevancy of those references does not appear. Comparative rates between other points in Illinois are not relevant unless the conditions are shown to be substantially the same as in the case at bar. There is no such evidence in the record.

The evidence is totally insufficient to sustain the order made by the Commerce Commission. A careful consideration of the testimony as abstracted shows that the witness Kane dealt in generalities and irrelevant comparison of rates between points in this State and other States. The commission's order included many of them. It is based on the alleged facts that the present rate from Gillespie to Litchfield is 203 per cent higher than the rate in effect in 1913; that the present rate from Hillsboro to Litchfield is 185 per cent higher than the rate in 1913; that the present lump coal rate from Mt. Olive to Litchfield is 252 per cent *Page 252 higher; and that the fine-coal rate between those points is 180 per cent higher.

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

Related

Railroad & Warehouse Commission v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
98 N.W.2d 60 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1959)
Antioch Milling Co. v. Public Service Co.
123 N.E.2d 302 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
167 N.E. 38, 335 Ill. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commerce-commission-ex-rel-brown-shoe-co-v-illinois-traction-inc-ill-1929.