Southern Railway Co. v. Pentecost

330 S.W.2d 321, 205 Tenn. 716, 9 McCanless 716, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 413
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 11, 1959
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 330 S.W.2d 321 (Southern Railway Co. v. Pentecost) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Railway Co. v. Pentecost, 330 S.W.2d 321, 205 Tenn. 716, 9 McCanless 716, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 413 (Tenn. 1959).

Opinion

Me. Justice Swepston

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The determinative question in this case is whether or not by reason of the failure of the Southern Railway Company to include within its switching limits at Knoxville, Tennessee, the Shalite Corporation it is guilty of the violation of either or both of the two following statutory provisions:

T.C.A. sec. 65-512 provides as follows:

“Special rate, rebate or drawback by common carrier or public service company prohibited — Preference in furnishing cars or motive power unlawful — Unjust discrimination. — If any common carrier or public service company shall directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person a greater or less compensation for any services rendered in the transportation of any kind of property, or any person, or any service within this state than it charges, de[718]*718mands, collects, or receives from any other person for a- like service in transportation or service of a like kind under substantially like circumstances and conditions, and if such common carrier or such other public service company, make any preference between the parties aforesaid, in furnishing cars or motive power or otherwise, such common carrier or other public service company shall he guilty of unjust discrimination, which is prohibited and declared unlawful.”

T.C.A. sec. 65-514 provides as follows:

“Preferences are unlawful. — It shall be unlawful for any such corporation to make or give an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality, or any particular description of traffic or service, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic or service to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.”

The Tennessee Public Service Commission held that the Railway Company, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the Southern, was guilty of violating said Code sections and in effect ordered the Southern to place Shalite Corporation within the switching limits of Knoxville, in order that the latter might obtain the benefit of a cheaper rate. The Southern petitioned a writ of certiorari and supersedeas in the Chancery Court, where the Chancellor held that there was material evidence to support the finding of fact made by the Commission and the petitions for writs were dismissed, as a result of which the Southern has appealed to this Court as provided by T.C.A. sec. 65-230.

[719]*719Many questions are discussed in the briefs which we do not find it necessary to go into. We have examined the record carefully and we are convinced that there is no evidence to support the action of either the Commission or the Chancellor.

The record shows without contradiction the following facts:

The switching limits involved here, as well as switching limits generally, are not determined by any definite geographical boundary line such as the limits of a municipal corporation, but are determined by the particular railroad on the basis of the concentration of industry in a given locality, or localities, which will make it economically feasible and cost-saving to conduct switching operations to and from the different plants and the main line of the Railway to use switch engines and switching crews; and as a result of this saving, the same usually is passed along to the industries so located in these switching limits. The charge in this record is a flat per car charge of $18.09 irrespective of the weight, distance and kind of material being hauled, whereas the Shalite Corporation, Avhich is not located in a concentrated industrial area and, as will appear later, is located on a siding of a double track main line and can not he served by a switch engine and crew; and the rate for this line-haul from Shalite to its two principal customers, Southern Cast Stone and Knox Concrete Products, intervenors herein, amounts to $33 per car of average load of 50 tons.

It is recognized by both parties that it is within the discretion of a carrier to decide what industries are to be included and those to be excluded within switching limits, so long as unjust discrimination and undue prejudice [720]*720are avoided. Los Angeles Switching Case (Interstate Commerce Commission v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company), 234 U.S. 294, 313, 34 S.Ct. 814, 58 L.Ed. 1319.

So let ns look further into the undisputed evidence. The only alleged competitor of Shalite is Williams Lime Mfg. Co. Both Shalite and Williams sell their products to the two above-named intervenors who are manufacturers of concrete blocks. Shalite manufacturers a lig’ht weight material, 1600 lbs. per cubic yard, which sells for $4.71 per net ton and produces a light weight concrete block that commands a higher price by reason of its insulating and fire resistant characteristics, whereas the Williams Company sells a limestone sand, a byproduct, weighing 2500 lbs. per cubic yard, for $1.40 per net ton and it makes a heavier and not as good a concrete block as the Shalite material. The Williams Company is located within the switching limits.

The direct rail distance from Shalite to Southern Cast Stone is approximately 13 miles. The distance from Williams Company to Southern Cast Stone is 6 miles. The distance from Shalite to Knox Concrete is approximately 15 miles. The distance from Williams Company is 8 miles.

Exhibit No. 5, the map of the Railway System in the Knoxville area, shows that the Bristol Chattanooga line runs approximately east and west through the center of the City of Knoxville with the John Sevier yard to the east of the city. The switching limit extends to this yard. Coming off to the north from the John Sevier yard is a main double track line that goes up outside the city limits to the Shalite Corporation which has a [721]*721deadend siding coming off the west track and going south to the Shalite Corporation. Just above this siding the double track turns west and goes to a “Y” which is designated as Beverly and from this “Y” one branch goes to Middleboro toward the northeast and the other to the southwest to the area of the Coster Repair Shops yard, where it intersects a line that comes up from just west of the passenger station and the city yards through Coster yard and on up to Clinton and passes through a spot called Black Oak Ridge a short distance above the Coster Yards.

The distance from the city yard to John Sevier Yard is 7% miles and from John Sevier to Shalite plant is 3 miles approximately. Due to the geographical location of Shalite’s plant and traffic arrangement in that area, to transport empty cars from Sevier Yard necessitates handling a car some 40-odd miles. For example, with an empty car from Sevier Yard to Shalite plant, it is handled in the local train 3.44 miles. After the car is loaded, it is handled from Shalite’s plant to Black Oak Ridge, a distance of 7.696 miles; from Black Oak Ridge back to Sevier Yard, 11.340 miles; from Sevier Yard to Southern Cast Stone, 9.48 miles, an empty from Southern Cast Stone to Sevier Yard, 9.48 miles, giving a total of 41.640 miles for the round trip of the car. Following the same procedure, the total distance in handling a car to and from Shalite to Knox Concrete Plant is about 46% miles.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
330 S.W.2d 321, 205 Tenn. 716, 9 McCanless 716, 1959 Tenn. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-pentecost-tenn-1959.